Swindon protesters rally in bid to stop Government's cuts

This Is Wiltshire: Anti-austerity protest organiser Kate Linnegar Buy this photo » Anti-austerity protest organiser Kate Linnegar

“HANDS off our NHS” was activists’ rallying cry against the Government’s austerity measures at a peaceful demonstration in the town centre.

Protesters from Swindon People’s Assembly gathered near the Brunel Centre on Saturday to publicly oppose what they described as the coalition’s never-ending budget cuts and renewed attacks on the country’s most vulnerable people and institutions.

The group, a local branch of a nationwide anti-austerity movement, invited passers-by to sign a giant Christmas card addressed to the Prime Minister and list the negative impact drastic economic policies had had on their lives since the beginning of the recession.

The large greetings card will soon be presented to David Cameron at Number 10.

Kate Linnegar, of Rodbourne, was among those singing revisited Christmas carols with an anti-austerity twist and waving placards warning ministers to keep their hands off the NHS and put an end to budget cuts.

“The poorest have been penalised for the errors made by bankers and politicians,” said the 52-year-old.

“We are here to defend the welfare state, the NHS and education; the safety net that was put in place to protect people and that this Government is taking away little by little.

“We are asking people to explain to David Cameron why they can’t afford Christmas – because of the cost of living, and utilities, which have gone sky-high, but wages are staying the same.”

Another activist, Karl North, of Rodbourne, condemned the coalition for creating what he saw as an even wider gap between the wealthy and the nation’s struggling millions.

“Austerity is not needed; there is nothing to be gained from it,” said the 43-year-old.

“We need to invest in proper jobs and infrastructure.

“About one million people are on zero-hour contracts. This is slave labour in the 21st century. We are going back to the Victorian era.

“There is an alternative to austerity, we want people to know there is hope. But we can’t achieve anything if we do nothing.”

Although highly critical of the Government, campaigners maintained the rally was not politically motivated.

Between joining carollers belting out The 12 Cuts Of Christmas and Hark! The Evil Bankers’ Sin, Livio Pavone, 56, of West Swindon, explained his reasons for taking to the streets to oppose the economic policies.

“You can see in Greece what cuts have done,” he said. “It has affected the structure of society.

“We want the Government to stop this before it’s too late. The Government is pushing these cuts and the councils have got to balance their budgets and inevitably they cut the amount which goes to the most vulnerable. This is downward spiral.

”We are doing this for our children and our children’s children.”

Comments (68)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:56am Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...

What a farce, these people don't even discuss the reality of the situation.

NHS budget under the final year of Brown's Labour government: £105 Billion

NHS budget under the current year under the Tory-led coalition government: £109 Billion

So the current government are actually spending £4 Billion MORE on the NHS than Labour did a couple of years ago.

'Cuts' - hardly.
What a farce, these people don't even discuss the reality of the situation. NHS budget under the final year of Brown's Labour government: £105 Billion NHS budget under the current year under the Tory-led coalition government: £109 Billion So the current government are actually spending £4 Billion MORE on the NHS than Labour did a couple of years ago. 'Cuts' - hardly. Ringer

7:41am Mon 16 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

Activist Karl North said:
There is an alternative to austerity, we want people to know there is hope.

Conveniently forgetting to mention what the alternative is, knowing full well it'd be borrowing even more billions from those nasty bankers to give away in handouts to people who somehow believe they're entitled to 'afford Christmas' (whatever that means).
[quote][p][bold]Activist Karl North[/bold] said: There is an alternative to austerity, we want people to know there is hope.[/quote] Conveniently forgetting to mention what the alternative is, knowing full well it'd be borrowing even more billions from those nasty bankers to give away in handouts to people who somehow believe they're entitled to 'afford Christmas' (whatever that means). Hmmmf

8:18am Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringеr says...

Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*.

The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.
Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*. The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better. Ringеr

8:31am Mon 16 Dec 13

Wildwestener says...

Ringеr wrote:
Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*.

The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.
Well done Ringer, you've just saved loads of miserable g**s the trouble of pouring out their bitter, uninformed vitriole by summarising their position for them ;)
In all seriousness, as usual with things in the real world, the cuts are both harsh AND necessary in the main. The person who alluded to Greece has mis-analysed it as it is because Greece didn't stop spending money it didn't have on public services that the banks pulled the plug and the country descended into economic chaos.
The bottom line is, you cannot keep borrowing more and more money without any hope of paying it back; eventually someone will call in that debt and it all goes belly up. It doesn't mean the impact on some is anything other than harsh.
As for the bankers, yes they are very culpable but let's not forget that to lend out all that money that created the debt bubble, people had to be prepared to borrow it in the first place. People seemed quite happy taking on massive mortgages and credit cards etc. We need to look to ourselves as well as just conveniently blame the bankers for everything.
[quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*. The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.[/p][/quote]Well done Ringer, you've just saved loads of miserable g**s the trouble of pouring out their bitter, uninformed vitriole by summarising their position for them ;) In all seriousness, as usual with things in the real world, the cuts are both harsh AND necessary in the main. The person who alluded to Greece has mis-analysed it as it is because Greece didn't stop spending money it didn't have on public services that the banks pulled the plug and the country descended into economic chaos. The bottom line is, you cannot keep borrowing more and more money without any hope of paying it back; eventually someone will call in that debt and it all goes belly up. It doesn't mean the impact on some is anything other than harsh. As for the bankers, yes they are very culpable but let's not forget that to lend out all that money that created the debt bubble, people had to be prepared to borrow it in the first place. People seemed quite happy taking on massive mortgages and credit cards etc. We need to look to ourselves as well as just conveniently blame the bankers for everything. Wildwestener

8:36am Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Ringеr wrote:
Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*.

The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.
Nice hijacking of my account, impressive... but it was actually only 13 years of Labour.

Still 13 too many though.
[quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*. The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.[/p][/quote]Nice hijacking of my account, impressive... but it was actually only 13 years of Labour. Still 13 too many though. Ringer

8:41am Mon 16 Dec 13

ging999 says...

Protect the welfare state to a certain extent yes, as that safety net is necessary because 'hard times', could happen to any of us. BUT it is a way of life for many people who have no other intention whatsoever, apart from living on handouts because they can.
Protect the welfare state to a certain extent yes, as that safety net is necessary because 'hard times', could happen to any of us. BUT it is a way of life for many people who have no other intention whatsoever, apart from living on handouts because they can. ging999

9:18am Mon 16 Dec 13

Moth says...

One thing many of you commenters above have missed is that while we are having austerity cuts forced upon us this government is still dishing out £millions in foreign aid to India and China, two countries that don't need any aid. Both are wealthy enough to have space programmes. Charity begins at home but that's something this government seems oblivious to. I do, however, agree that 13 years of Labour mismanagement of the economy (and everything else) put us in this position but the Coalition are just as bad if not worse.

The government wants to slash the benefits bill. Agreed there are many people who make a career out of claiming as much benefit as they can and that does need to be reined in but where are the jobs? For every job advertised, usually through agencies which by and large are not regulated, there are hundreds of applicants.

There is much wrong with this country which neither Labour nor the Coalition seem capable of putting right.

As of 1st January we are going to be flooded with immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria. If our own people can't find work, how are these people going to find work? Obviously they're not so will be claiming benefits paid for by the rest of us.

I really do fear for the future.
One thing many of you commenters above have missed is that while we are having austerity cuts forced upon us this government is still dishing out £millions in foreign aid to India and China, two countries that don't need any aid. Both are wealthy enough to have space programmes. Charity begins at home but that's something this government seems oblivious to. I do, however, agree that 13 years of Labour mismanagement of the economy (and everything else) put us in this position but the Coalition are just as bad if not worse. The government wants to slash the benefits bill. Agreed there are many people who make a career out of claiming as much benefit as they can and that does need to be reined in but where are the jobs? For every job advertised, usually through agencies which by and large are not regulated, there are hundreds of applicants. There is much wrong with this country which neither Labour nor the Coalition seem capable of putting right. As of 1st January we are going to be flooded with immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria. If our own people can't find work, how are these people going to find work? Obviously they're not so will be claiming benefits paid for by the rest of us. I really do fear for the future. Moth

9:59am Mon 16 Dec 13

Empty Car Park says...

Ringer wrote:
Ringеr wrote:
Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*.

The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.
Nice hijacking of my account, impressive... but it was actually only 13 years of Labour.

Still 13 too many though.
Nobody "hijacked your account" did they
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*. The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.[/p][/quote]Nice hijacking of my account, impressive... but it was actually only 13 years of Labour. Still 13 too many though.[/p][/quote]Nobody "hijacked your account" did they Empty Car Park

10:09am Mon 16 Dec 13

twasadawf says...

Fact is with all this austerity being dished out by the tory's Government (debt) borrowing has gone sky high under the tory's and is not being reduced in anyway(borrowing=deb
t)
Fact is with all this austerity being dished out by the tory's Government (debt) borrowing has gone sky high under the tory's and is not being reduced in anyway(borrowing=deb t) twasadawf

10:19am Mon 16 Dec 13

James Smith Bowser says...

Labour have made it clear that if they achieve power local or nationally they will cut pensions to the elderly to protect welfare payments.

And still people vote for them.
Labour have made it clear that if they achieve power local or nationally they will cut pensions to the elderly to protect welfare payments. And still people vote for them. James Smith Bowser

10:30am Mon 16 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The welfare state is to provide a social/health safety net, it was never intended to be a long term assistance for the many.
All welfare payments should be stopped after a couple of months.
The welfare state is to provide a social/health safety net, it was never intended to be a long term assistance for the many. All welfare payments should be stopped after a couple of months. A.Baron-Cohen

10:33am Mon 16 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Wildwestener wrote:
Ringеr wrote:
Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*.

The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.
Well done Ringer, you've just saved loads of miserable g**s the trouble of pouring out their bitter, uninformed vitriole by summarising their position for them ;)
In all seriousness, as usual with things in the real world, the cuts are both harsh AND necessary in the main. The person who alluded to Greece has mis-analysed it as it is because Greece didn't stop spending money it didn't have on public services that the banks pulled the plug and the country descended into economic chaos.
The bottom line is, you cannot keep borrowing more and more money without any hope of paying it back; eventually someone will call in that debt and it all goes belly up. It doesn't mean the impact on some is anything other than harsh.
As for the bankers, yes they are very culpable but let's not forget that to lend out all that money that created the debt bubble, people had to be prepared to borrow it in the first place. People seemed quite happy taking on massive mortgages and credit cards etc. We need to look to ourselves as well as just conveniently blame the bankers for everything.
Absolutely agree, too many miss the reality of the situation and just find an easy target to blame. We are all to blame in one way or another and need to accept that. we still have a situation where more than half take more from the "pot" than they contribute and are therefore a drain on the country so none of them should be moaning.

These idiot protesters seem to think there is some bottomless pit that Govts can keep dipping into to bail out those who are able to contribute but choose not to. What we send in overseas aid is a drop in the ocean to the welfare bill so that is a pretty pathetic excuse and it is estimated that more than £15billion isnt claimed because people either dont realise they can or are too proud to ask as many older generation are.

A big dose of reality and common sense needed here and a bit more responsibility for their own lives from those who expect others to constantly bail them out.
[quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*. The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.[/p][/quote]Well done Ringer, you've just saved loads of miserable g**s the trouble of pouring out their bitter, uninformed vitriole by summarising their position for them ;) In all seriousness, as usual with things in the real world, the cuts are both harsh AND necessary in the main. The person who alluded to Greece has mis-analysed it as it is because Greece didn't stop spending money it didn't have on public services that the banks pulled the plug and the country descended into economic chaos. The bottom line is, you cannot keep borrowing more and more money without any hope of paying it back; eventually someone will call in that debt and it all goes belly up. It doesn't mean the impact on some is anything other than harsh. As for the bankers, yes they are very culpable but let's not forget that to lend out all that money that created the debt bubble, people had to be prepared to borrow it in the first place. People seemed quite happy taking on massive mortgages and credit cards etc. We need to look to ourselves as well as just conveniently blame the bankers for everything.[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, too many miss the reality of the situation and just find an easy target to blame. We are all to blame in one way or another and need to accept that. we still have a situation where more than half take more from the "pot" than they contribute and are therefore a drain on the country so none of them should be moaning. These idiot protesters seem to think there is some bottomless pit that Govts can keep dipping into to bail out those who are able to contribute but choose not to. What we send in overseas aid is a drop in the ocean to the welfare bill so that is a pretty pathetic excuse and it is estimated that more than £15billion isnt claimed because people either dont realise they can or are too proud to ask as many older generation are. A big dose of reality and common sense needed here and a bit more responsibility for their own lives from those who expect others to constantly bail them out. house on the hill

10:51am Mon 16 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

While I'm perfectly willing to hear the arguments of those against austerity (despite the signs that it's working and the economy is beginning to pick up), what I'd like to know is what these people think we're going to pay for any alternatives with. The opposite of austerity would involve massive spending with money that we don't have (more borrowing). Do we really want to get into even more debt as a nation?

Some government commentators believe the actual budget deficit is still 185 billion, despite austerity. For those that don't know, that means as a nation we're spending up to £185 billion more than we generate in taxes, investments and other income streams.

To reduce this deficit and start paying off our debts, we either need to generate more money or reduce the amount of money we spend.

I think we all understand that austerity means spending less money and what the impacts and effects of that are. Spending borrowed money on infrastructure projects is not a long term wealth creator. All it will do is get us into ever more debt. Adding to the existing debt that we are already struggling to pay off.

To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.
While I'm perfectly willing to hear the arguments of those against austerity (despite the signs that it's working and the economy is beginning to pick up), what I'd like to know is what these people think we're going to pay for any alternatives with. The opposite of austerity would involve massive spending with money that we don't have (more borrowing). Do we really want to get into even more debt as a nation? Some government commentators believe the actual budget deficit is still 185 billion, despite austerity. For those that don't know, that means as a nation we're spending up to £185 billion more than we generate in taxes, investments and other income streams. To reduce this deficit and start paying off our debts, we either need to generate more money or reduce the amount of money we spend. I think we all understand that austerity means spending less money and what the impacts and effects of that are. Spending borrowed money on infrastructure projects is not a long term wealth creator. All it will do is get us into ever more debt. Adding to the existing debt that we are already struggling to pay off. To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:11am Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Ringеr wrote:
Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*.

The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.
Nice hijacking of my account, impressive... but it was actually only 13 years of Labour.

Still 13 too many though.
Nobody "hijacked your account" did they
You wouldn't think so, because you ALWAYS get things entirely wrong. It's what you do.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: Lets face it, absolutely everything that's ever gone wrong in this country, in fact the entire planet, can be laid squarely at the feet of 14 years of Labour government and our local judges. The 'global' financial crash, the unaffordable NHS, moneygrabbing layabouts, 'disabled' people claiming handouts - *everything*. The sooner we get rid of the NHS and lock everyone up that has ever done anything wrong or claimed benefits the better.[/p][/quote]Nice hijacking of my account, impressive... but it was actually only 13 years of Labour. Still 13 too many though.[/p][/quote]Nobody "hijacked your account" did they[/p][/quote]You wouldn't think so, because you ALWAYS get things entirely wrong. It's what you do. Ringer

11:35am Mon 16 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
While I'm perfectly willing to hear the arguments of those against austerity (despite the signs that it's working and the economy is beginning to pick up), what I'd like to know is what these people think we're going to pay for any alternatives with. The opposite of austerity would involve massive spending with money that we don't have (more borrowing). Do we really want to get into even more debt as a nation?

Some government commentators believe the actual budget deficit is still 185 billion, despite austerity. For those that don't know, that means as a nation we're spending up to £185 billion more than we generate in taxes, investments and other income streams.

To reduce this deficit and start paying off our debts, we either need to generate more money or reduce the amount of money we spend.

I think we all understand that austerity means spending less money and what the impacts and effects of that are. Spending borrowed money on infrastructure projects is not a long term wealth creator. All it will do is get us into ever more debt. Adding to the existing debt that we are already struggling to pay off.

To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.
Austerity in itself is self defeating.....as for protectionism in any form is just plain wrong.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: While I'm perfectly willing to hear the arguments of those against austerity (despite the signs that it's working and the economy is beginning to pick up), what I'd like to know is what these people think we're going to pay for any alternatives with. The opposite of austerity would involve massive spending with money that we don't have (more borrowing). Do we really want to get into even more debt as a nation? Some government commentators believe the actual budget deficit is still 185 billion, despite austerity. For those that don't know, that means as a nation we're spending up to £185 billion more than we generate in taxes, investments and other income streams. To reduce this deficit and start paying off our debts, we either need to generate more money or reduce the amount of money we spend. I think we all understand that austerity means spending less money and what the impacts and effects of that are. Spending borrowed money on infrastructure projects is not a long term wealth creator. All it will do is get us into ever more debt. Adding to the existing debt that we are already struggling to pay off. To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.[/p][/quote]Austerity in itself is self defeating.....as for protectionism in any form is just plain wrong. A.Baron-Cohen

11:42am Mon 16 Dec 13

AnotherRespondent says...

I'm not going to get into Ringer's points because he is a moron and I doubt he would understand most of the words I would have to use.

Speding borrowed money on infrastructure CAN be a long tem wealth creator. We have a whole banking industry that allows this in the private sector and indeed requires it. On a governmental level, this is how we got many of the services that are now sadly privatised.

A large deficit does not mean we ARE spending lots but that we HAVE been. Somebody with a mortgage has not necessarily just bought a house. They could have done it 10 years ago. and are still paying off the income, while the principal is untouched. Getting companies and rich individuals to pay the tax they already legally owe would be a good thing, but staffing cuts in the tax offices have impacted the tax revenue. It is estimated that over £100 billion could be raised in this way, far more than the paltry cost of the welfare state. That noted Marxist rag the Economist said recently that tax in this country is increasingy a voluntary activity.

Cuts to services, including social security, are made on an idelogical basis, not an economic one, and have been made by an unelected coalition often at odds with election pledges. Nobody voted for what they are doing.

People on benefits need them for many different reasons and it is disingenuous to suggest any large group of anyone thinks in the same way and are all lazy, unomtivated or scrounging. We don't do it with a race (well, most of us don't) and there is as little justification to do it with an economic division. Many people are poor or unemployed for many different reasons and half of those in poverty are actually working.

I would like to see some of the 'survival of the fittest' respodents give their view on what should happen to the people that are left behind. Clearly we can't all be rich bankers, doctors and lawyers, so what is being suggested should happen to those at the bottom of the food chain? Do we just leave them to starve by the side of the road somewhere? Do we accept that pettty crime is likely to rise, people stealing food from skips and shops, maybe even food banks? How about begging and homelesness? We OK with that? I keep seeing that people don't deserve or need a safety net, that without govenent assistance they will be encouraged to strive, set up their own businesses (because there are no jobs) and make something of themselves. Seriously? Does anyone really see that as an option?
I'm not going to get into Ringer's points because he is a moron and I doubt he would understand most of the words I would have to use. Speding borrowed money on infrastructure CAN be a long tem wealth creator. We have a whole banking industry that allows this in the private sector and indeed requires it. On a governmental level, this is how we got many of the services that are now sadly privatised. A large deficit does not mean we ARE spending lots but that we HAVE been. Somebody with a mortgage has not necessarily just bought a house. They could have done it 10 years ago. and are still paying off the income, while the principal is untouched. Getting companies and rich individuals to pay the tax they already legally owe would be a good thing, but staffing cuts in the tax offices have impacted the tax revenue. It is estimated that over £100 billion could be raised in this way, far more than the paltry cost of the welfare state. That noted Marxist rag the Economist said recently that tax in this country is increasingy a voluntary activity. Cuts to services, including social security, are made on an idelogical basis, not an economic one, and have been made by an unelected coalition often at odds with election pledges. Nobody voted for what they are doing. People on benefits need them for many different reasons and it is disingenuous to suggest any large group of anyone thinks in the same way and are all lazy, unomtivated or scrounging. We don't do it with a race (well, most of us don't) and there is as little justification to do it with an economic division. Many people are poor or unemployed for many different reasons and half of those in poverty are actually working. I would like to see some of the 'survival of the fittest' respodents give their view on what should happen to the people that are left behind. Clearly we can't all be rich bankers, doctors and lawyers, so what is being suggested should happen to those at the bottom of the food chain? Do we just leave them to starve by the side of the road somewhere? Do we accept that pettty crime is likely to rise, people stealing food from skips and shops, maybe even food banks? How about begging and homelesness? We OK with that? I keep seeing that people don't deserve or need a safety net, that without govenent assistance they will be encouraged to strive, set up their own businesses (because there are no jobs) and make something of themselves. Seriously? Does anyone really see that as an option? AnotherRespondent

12:10pm Mon 16 Dec 13

AnotherRespondent says...

Apolgies for the typos. I have a seven year old laptop that is so slow, it gets overtaken by stationary objects, and because of my medication, I'm not as attentive in the mornings as I could be. But I'm in the wrong forum to expect sympathy for that, I'm sure. Anyone want to go first and tell me disability is a lifestyle choice that the hardworking people of Swindon shouldn't have to pay for?
Apolgies for the typos. I have a seven year old laptop that is so slow, it gets overtaken by stationary objects, and because of my medication, I'm not as attentive in the mornings as I could be. But I'm in the wrong forum to expect sympathy for that, I'm sure. Anyone want to go first and tell me disability is a lifestyle choice that the hardworking people of Swindon shouldn't have to pay for? AnotherRespondent

12:11pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

AnotherRespondent wrote:
I'm not going to get into Ringer's points because he is a moron and I doubt he would understand most of the words I would have to use.

I for one stopped reading right there. Insults and arrogance seldom if ever preface intelligent argument.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: I'm not going to get into Ringer's points because he is a moron and I doubt he would understand most of the words I would have to use.[/quote] I for one stopped reading right there. Insults and arrogance seldom if ever preface intelligent argument. Hmmmf

12:11pm Mon 16 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Oh boy.

"A large deficit does not mean we ARE spending lots but that we HAVE been. "

Errr, no completely wrong, which shows you really don't understand the scale of the problem. We are still spending £185 billion more every year than we are able to generate in income. i.e. once all our incomings and outgoings are accounted for we have a shortfall of £185 billion every year.

Over 100 billion could be raised in taxes? Not sure where you got that figure from but the "paltry" welfare state cost £190 billion last year, just in handouts. That's without the cost of administering it.

As for your last emotive paragraph - I see that as more of an option than paying out increasing amounts of money from a smaller and smaller tax pool. "Rich bankers, doctors are lawyers" are only "Rich bankers, doctors and lawyers" because they've worked hard and are now reaping the benefits of that, something that is only right and proper.
Oh boy. "A large deficit does not mean we ARE spending lots but that we HAVE been. " Errr, no completely wrong, which shows you really don't understand the scale of the problem. We are still spending £185 billion more every year than we are able to generate in income. i.e. once all our incomings and outgoings are accounted for we have a shortfall of £185 billion every year. Over 100 billion could be raised in taxes? Not sure where you got that figure from but the "paltry" welfare state cost £190 billion last year, just in handouts. That's without the cost of administering it. As for your last emotive paragraph - I see that as more of an option than paying out increasing amounts of money from a smaller and smaller tax pool. "Rich bankers, doctors are lawyers" are only "Rich bankers, doctors and lawyers" because they've worked hard and are now reaping the benefits of that, something that is only right and proper. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

12:17pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Just been playing 'Guardian Bingo'.

This one always scores two points:


Do we just leave them to starve by the side of the road somewhere?
Just been playing 'Guardian Bingo'. This one always scores two points: [quote] Do we just leave them to starve by the side of the road somewhere? [/quote] Ringer

12:19pm Mon 16 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

AnotherRespondent wrote:
I'm not going to get into Ringer's points because he is a moron and I doubt he would understand most of the words I would have to use.

Speding borrowed money on infrastructure CAN be a long tem wealth creator. We have a whole banking industry that allows this in the private sector and indeed requires it. On a governmental level, this is how we got many of the services that are now sadly privatised.

A large deficit does not mean we ARE spending lots but that we HAVE been. Somebody with a mortgage has not necessarily just bought a house. They could have done it 10 years ago. and are still paying off the income, while the principal is untouched. Getting companies and rich individuals to pay the tax they already legally owe would be a good thing, but staffing cuts in the tax offices have impacted the tax revenue. It is estimated that over £100 billion could be raised in this way, far more than the paltry cost of the welfare state. That noted Marxist rag the Economist said recently that tax in this country is increasingy a voluntary activity.

Cuts to services, including social security, are made on an idelogical basis, not an economic one, and have been made by an unelected coalition often at odds with election pledges. Nobody voted for what they are doing.

People on benefits need them for many different reasons and it is disingenuous to suggest any large group of anyone thinks in the same way and are all lazy, unomtivated or scrounging. We don't do it with a race (well, most of us don't) and there is as little justification to do it with an economic division. Many people are poor or unemployed for many different reasons and half of those in poverty are actually working.

I would like to see some of the 'survival of the fittest' respodents give their view on what should happen to the people that are left behind. Clearly we can't all be rich bankers, doctors and lawyers, so what is being suggested should happen to those at the bottom of the food chain? Do we just leave them to starve by the side of the road somewhere? Do we accept that pettty crime is likely to rise, people stealing food from skips and shops, maybe even food banks? How about begging and homelesness? We OK with that? I keep seeing that people don't deserve or need a safety net, that without govenent assistance they will be encouraged to strive, set up their own businesses (because there are no jobs) and make something of themselves. Seriously? Does anyone really see that as an option?
Some very good points there. Of course borrowing can help growth, but only if it is invested well and I guess the problem is do we have faith in the Govt to do this.

Cuts again can help if they are the right one. Anyone who has worked in the public sector knows how dreadfully inefficient and wasteful it is and short sighted in that having more staff in some areas (tax collection, benefit fraud etc) could actually benefit the economy. There is plenty of scope there to improve things and actually provide more for less if run properly.

As for "nobody voted for what they are doing" that is true of any Govt, elected or not. They can just chuck the manifesto out of the window on day 1 and do whatever they want and often do so that is no change there.

"Many people are poor or unemployed for many different reasons and half of those in poverty are actually working"" Maybe we should be looking at the reasons and try and prevent rather than cure? And what is the definition of poor or vulnerable, there seem to be so many different ones?

Of course we can't just abandon those "at the bottom of the food chain" as you so eloquently put it! But surely we can help them to move up the chain and should we be throwing endless resources at those who clearly expect to be supported endlessly.How do we deal with a society where 53% take more than they contribute, that is a recipe for disaster.

Some good points as I said and also some unanswered questions raised too.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: I'm not going to get into Ringer's points because he is a moron and I doubt he would understand most of the words I would have to use. Speding borrowed money on infrastructure CAN be a long tem wealth creator. We have a whole banking industry that allows this in the private sector and indeed requires it. On a governmental level, this is how we got many of the services that are now sadly privatised. A large deficit does not mean we ARE spending lots but that we HAVE been. Somebody with a mortgage has not necessarily just bought a house. They could have done it 10 years ago. and are still paying off the income, while the principal is untouched. Getting companies and rich individuals to pay the tax they already legally owe would be a good thing, but staffing cuts in the tax offices have impacted the tax revenue. It is estimated that over £100 billion could be raised in this way, far more than the paltry cost of the welfare state. That noted Marxist rag the Economist said recently that tax in this country is increasingy a voluntary activity. Cuts to services, including social security, are made on an idelogical basis, not an economic one, and have been made by an unelected coalition often at odds with election pledges. Nobody voted for what they are doing. People on benefits need them for many different reasons and it is disingenuous to suggest any large group of anyone thinks in the same way and are all lazy, unomtivated or scrounging. We don't do it with a race (well, most of us don't) and there is as little justification to do it with an economic division. Many people are poor or unemployed for many different reasons and half of those in poverty are actually working. I would like to see some of the 'survival of the fittest' respodents give their view on what should happen to the people that are left behind. Clearly we can't all be rich bankers, doctors and lawyers, so what is being suggested should happen to those at the bottom of the food chain? Do we just leave them to starve by the side of the road somewhere? Do we accept that pettty crime is likely to rise, people stealing food from skips and shops, maybe even food banks? How about begging and homelesness? We OK with that? I keep seeing that people don't deserve or need a safety net, that without govenent assistance they will be encouraged to strive, set up their own businesses (because there are no jobs) and make something of themselves. Seriously? Does anyone really see that as an option?[/p][/quote]Some very good points there. Of course borrowing can help growth, but only if it is invested well and I guess the problem is do we have faith in the Govt to do this. Cuts again can help if they are the right one. Anyone who has worked in the public sector knows how dreadfully inefficient and wasteful it is and short sighted in that having more staff in some areas (tax collection, benefit fraud etc) could actually benefit the economy. There is plenty of scope there to improve things and actually provide more for less if run properly. As for "nobody voted for what they are doing" that is true of any Govt, elected or not. They can just chuck the manifesto out of the window on day 1 and do whatever they want and often do so that is no change there. "Many people are poor or unemployed for many different reasons and half of those in poverty are actually working"" Maybe we should be looking at the reasons and try and prevent rather than cure? And what is the definition of poor or vulnerable, there seem to be so many different ones? Of course we can't just abandon those "at the bottom of the food chain" as you so eloquently put it! But surely we can help them to move up the chain and should we be throwing endless resources at those who clearly expect to be supported endlessly.How do we deal with a society where 53% take more than they contribute, that is a recipe for disaster. Some good points as I said and also some unanswered questions raised too. house on the hill

12:21pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...


It is estimated that over £100 billion could be raised in this way, far more than the paltry cost of the welfare state.


Er, the budget for NHS *alone* is 10% MORE than that.

The 'social welfare' budget now stands at well over DOUBLE the £100 Billion you think can be stolen on top of what's already being stolen from those who keep the failed welfare state barely afloat.


Cuts to services, including social security, are made on an idelogical basis, not an economic one,


I suppose reducing the UK's monumental debt and interest charges mountain could be considered an 'ideological basis' for managing the economy responsibly, but I don't suppose that's what you meant.

You simply believe it's all being done to be 'nasty', for no apparent reason than to be 'nasty'.

Not like those awfully 'caring' Labour types who actually got us into this mess by throwing money around that they didn't have. Such a nice bunch, those socialists.
[quote] It is estimated that over £100 billion could be raised in this way, far more than the paltry cost of the welfare state. [/quote] Er, the budget for NHS *alone* is 10% MORE than that. The 'social welfare' budget now stands at well over DOUBLE the £100 Billion you think can be stolen on top of what's already being stolen from those who keep the failed welfare state barely afloat. [quote] Cuts to services, including social security, are made on an idelogical basis, not an economic one, [/quote] I suppose reducing the UK's monumental debt and interest charges mountain could be considered an 'ideological basis' for managing the economy responsibly, but I don't suppose that's what you meant. You simply believe it's all being done to be 'nasty', for no apparent reason than to be 'nasty'. Not like those awfully 'caring' Labour types who actually got us into this mess by throwing money around that they didn't have. Such a nice bunch, those socialists. Ringer

12:38pm Mon 16 Dec 13

AnotherRespondent says...

There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc.

The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government.

Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy.

There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.
There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc. The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government. Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy. There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive. AnotherRespondent

12:39pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Empty Car Park says...

Have you found out who "the hijackers" are yet
Have you found out who "the hijackers" are yet Empty Car Park

12:48pm Mon 16 Dec 13

AnotherRespondent says...

Apologies for my earlier 'moron' comment, especially as it seems to have been unnecessary. Anyone who can equate tax with theft and Labour with socialism doesn't need me to call them a moron.
Apologies for my earlier 'moron' comment, especially as it seems to have been unnecessary. Anyone who can equate tax with theft and Labour with socialism doesn't need me to call them a moron. AnotherRespondent

12:51pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...


There is nothing being done to create jobs.
[/quote

The ONS official figures show that 1.4 Million new jobs have been created in the public sector since March 2010.

You seem rather obsessed with the public sector - an area that, ironically, now outstrips the private sector where salaries are concerned.

It is a myth to claim that public sector jobs are low paid. Indeed, the average wage for a nurse in the UK is £25kpa, which is the same as the nation average wage across all employment. Demonstrably, then, nurses are not 'low paid'.

In fact, a basic grade nurse can earn as much as £28kpa. Salaries at senior level (Bands 7-9 in the NHS) range from £30,764 - £98,453.

There is a nationally agreed salary structure for firefighters. The starting salary for a trainee firefighter is £21,157. When full competence is achieved, this rises to £28,199. Higher rates apply for overtime.

Average pay for a police constable is £27,471. Grades above that receive significantly higher salaries, with even sergeants earning an average of almost £38kpa.

By definition, there will be millions upon millions of private sector workers who earn far less than any of them.

As for 'punishing those who do not have jobs', benefit payments to all those out of work rose by 5.2% last year - a far bigger increase in income than the vast majority of working people got.

The socialist mentality is erroneous at the best of times, but endlessly tilting at windmills that don't exist and just plain lying about the reality shows just how far things have gone wrong with the mindset of those on the misguided Left.
[quote] There is nothing being done to create jobs. [/quote The ONS official figures show that 1.4 Million new jobs have been created in the public sector since March 2010. You seem rather obsessed with the public sector - an area that, ironically, now outstrips the private sector where salaries are concerned. It is a myth to claim that public sector jobs are low paid. Indeed, the average wage for a nurse in the UK is £25kpa, which is the same as the nation average wage across all employment. Demonstrably, then, nurses are not 'low paid'. In fact, a basic grade nurse can earn as much as £28kpa. Salaries at senior level (Bands 7-9 in the NHS) range from £30,764 - £98,453. There is a nationally agreed salary structure for firefighters. The starting salary for a trainee firefighter is £21,157. When full competence is achieved, this rises to £28,199. Higher rates apply for overtime. Average pay for a police constable is £27,471. Grades above that receive significantly higher salaries, with even sergeants earning an average of almost £38kpa. By definition, there will be millions upon millions of private sector workers who earn far less than any of them. As for 'punishing those who do not have jobs', benefit payments to all those out of work rose by 5.2% last year - a far bigger increase in income than the vast majority of working people got. The socialist mentality is erroneous at the best of times, but endlessly tilting at windmills that don't exist and just plain lying about the reality shows just how far things have gone wrong with the mindset of those on the misguided Left. Ringer

12:53pm Mon 16 Dec 13

StillPav says...

AnotherRespondent wrote:
I'm not going to get into Ringer's points because he is a moron and I doubt he would understand most of the words I would have to use. Speding borrowed money on infrastructure CAN be a long tem wealth creator. We have a whole banking industry that allows this in the private sector and indeed requires it. On a governmental level, this is how we got many of the services that are now sadly privatised. A large deficit does not mean we ARE spending lots but that we HAVE been. Somebody with a mortgage has not necessarily just bought a house. They could have done it 10 years ago. and are still paying off the income, while the principal is untouched. Getting companies and rich individuals to pay the tax they already legally owe would be a good thing, but staffing cuts in the tax offices have impacted the tax revenue. It is estimated that over £100 billion could be raised in this way, far more than the paltry cost of the welfare state. That noted Marxist rag the Economist said recently that tax in this country is increasingy a voluntary activity. Cuts to services, including social security, are made on an idelogical basis, not an economic one, and have been made by an unelected coalition often at odds with election pledges. Nobody voted for what they are doing. People on benefits need them for many different reasons and it is disingenuous to suggest any large group of anyone thinks in the same way and are all lazy, unomtivated or scrounging. We don't do it with a race (well, most of us don't) and there is as little justification to do it with an economic division. Many people are poor or unemployed for many different reasons and half of those in poverty are actually working. I would like to see some of the 'survival of the fittest' respodents give their view on what should happen to the people that are left behind. Clearly we can't all be rich bankers, doctors and lawyers, so what is being suggested should happen to those at the bottom of the food chain? Do we just leave them to starve by the side of the road somewhere? Do we accept that pettty crime is likely to rise, people stealing food from skips and shops, maybe even food banks? How about begging and homelesness? We OK with that? I keep seeing that people don't deserve or need a safety net, that without govenent assistance they will be encouraged to strive, set up their own businesses (because there are no jobs) and make something of themselves. Seriously? Does anyone really see that as an option?
AnotherRespondent - your analogy about Government spending and mortgages is wrong. I borrowed money to buy a house and I pay the mortgage out of my salary. The Government may well have borrowed money to spend on infrastructure, but they are now having to borrow more money simply to make the re-payments. This is a kin to me paying my mortgage with my credit card.

The Government is broke. It is spending far more money that it receives. Welfare spending is off the scale. It is expected to be £112bn in 2014 plus an additional £144bn in pensions. This is completely unsustainable.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: I'm not going to get into Ringer's points because he is a moron and I doubt he would understand most of the words I would have to use. Speding borrowed money on infrastructure CAN be a long tem wealth creator. We have a whole banking industry that allows this in the private sector and indeed requires it. On a governmental level, this is how we got many of the services that are now sadly privatised. A large deficit does not mean we ARE spending lots but that we HAVE been. Somebody with a mortgage has not necessarily just bought a house. They could have done it 10 years ago. and are still paying off the income, while the principal is untouched. Getting companies and rich individuals to pay the tax they already legally owe would be a good thing, but staffing cuts in the tax offices have impacted the tax revenue. It is estimated that over £100 billion could be raised in this way, far more than the paltry cost of the welfare state. That noted Marxist rag the Economist said recently that tax in this country is increasingy a voluntary activity. Cuts to services, including social security, are made on an idelogical basis, not an economic one, and have been made by an unelected coalition often at odds with election pledges. Nobody voted for what they are doing. People on benefits need them for many different reasons and it is disingenuous to suggest any large group of anyone thinks in the same way and are all lazy, unomtivated or scrounging. We don't do it with a race (well, most of us don't) and there is as little justification to do it with an economic division. Many people are poor or unemployed for many different reasons and half of those in poverty are actually working. I would like to see some of the 'survival of the fittest' respodents give their view on what should happen to the people that are left behind. Clearly we can't all be rich bankers, doctors and lawyers, so what is being suggested should happen to those at the bottom of the food chain? Do we just leave them to starve by the side of the road somewhere? Do we accept that pettty crime is likely to rise, people stealing food from skips and shops, maybe even food banks? How about begging and homelesness? We OK with that? I keep seeing that people don't deserve or need a safety net, that without govenent assistance they will be encouraged to strive, set up their own businesses (because there are no jobs) and make something of themselves. Seriously? Does anyone really see that as an option?[/p][/quote]AnotherRespondent - your analogy about Government spending and mortgages is wrong. I borrowed money to buy a house and I pay the mortgage out of my salary. The Government may well have borrowed money to spend on infrastructure, but they are now having to borrow more money simply to make the re-payments. This is a kin to me paying my mortgage with my credit card. The Government is broke. It is spending far more money that it receives. Welfare spending is off the scale. It is expected to be £112bn in 2014 plus an additional £144bn in pensions. This is completely unsustainable. StillPav

12:55pm Mon 16 Dec 13

AnotherRespondent says...

The NHS is not part of the welfare state. The NHS is part of the living infrastructure of this country, because healthy employees are also good for an economy.. You might as well say the road network was part of the welfare state.
The NHS is not part of the welfare state. The NHS is part of the living infrastructure of this country, because healthy employees are also good for an economy.. You might as well say the road network was part of the welfare state. AnotherRespondent

1:00pm Mon 16 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

AnotherRespondent wrote:
There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc.

The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government.

Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy.

There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.
But this isn't the sort of issue you can be emotive about.

Shops closing generally has little to do with any of this. They are closing down because retail has now largely been superseded by internet shopping. That doesn't mean there aren't people employed, just that those jobs are now doing something different to retail.

I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more.

I've already said how this country should grow, but I'll repeat it for your benefit:

To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc. The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government. Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy. There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.[/p][/quote]But this isn't the sort of issue you can be emotive about. Shops closing generally has little to do with any of this. They are closing down because retail has now largely been superseded by internet shopping. That doesn't mean there aren't people employed, just that those jobs are now doing something different to retail. I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more. I've already said how this country should grow, but I'll repeat it for your benefit: To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

1:22pm Mon 16 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

"""I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more"""

It will also make the goods and services more expensive as they still need the staff there to produce them and therefore less competitive so a bit of a catch 22 there. Amazon is cheap because they treat their staff like cr4p and if that changes for the better their prices go up and less people use them. And yes paying some people benefits when they work full time does seem a bit crazy but clearly not easily solved.
"""I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more""" It will also make the goods and services more expensive as they still need the staff there to produce them and therefore less competitive so a bit of a catch 22 there. Amazon is cheap because they treat their staff like cr4p and if that changes for the better their prices go up and less people use them. And yes paying some people benefits when they work full time does seem a bit crazy but clearly not easily solved. house on the hill

2:23pm Mon 16 Dec 13

The Real Librarian says...

If this is such a serious issue, why are there only 12 people there?
If this is such a serious issue, why are there only 12 people there? The Real Librarian

2:25pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...

AnotherRespondent wrote:
The NHS is not part of the welfare state. The NHS is part of the living infrastructure of this country, because healthy employees are also good for an economy.. You might as well say the road network was part of the welfare state.
Utterly incorrect. Unless you're simply knowingly lying, again, you appear oblivious to the origins of that to which you are so in thrall:


The proposal for a welfare state - the basics

In 1942, the Liberal politician William Beveridge, who the government set the task of discovering what kind of Britain people wanted to see after the war, declared that there were five "giants on the road to reconstruction":

poverty
disease
ignorance
squalor
idleness

To defeat these giants, he proposed setting up a welfare state with social security, a national health service, free education, council housing and full employment.

In the years after the war, the Labour government tried to make this vision come true.


Sadly, Beveridge's plans eventually increased ignorance and idleness - it was he who shaped the nation into becoming so.

You are totally at odds with what your communist comrades openly dictate to us:

http://classonline.o
rg.uk/blog/item/soci
al-state-the-most-im
portant-part-of-the-
welfare-state-the-nh
s
[quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: The NHS is not part of the welfare state. The NHS is part of the living infrastructure of this country, because healthy employees are also good for an economy.. You might as well say the road network was part of the welfare state.[/p][/quote]Utterly incorrect. Unless you're simply knowingly lying, again, you appear oblivious to the origins of that to which you are so in thrall: [quote] The proposal for a welfare state - the basics In 1942, the Liberal politician William Beveridge, who the government set the task of discovering what kind of Britain people wanted to see after the war, declared that there were five "giants on the road to reconstruction": poverty disease ignorance squalor idleness To defeat these giants, he proposed setting up a welfare state with social security, a national health service, free education, council housing and full employment. In the years after the war, the Labour government tried to make this vision come true. [/quote] Sadly, Beveridge's plans eventually increased ignorance and idleness - it was he who shaped the nation into becoming so. You are totally at odds with what your communist comrades openly dictate to us: http://classonline.o rg.uk/blog/item/soci al-state-the-most-im portant-part-of-the- welfare-state-the-nh s Ringer

2:30pm Mon 16 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
AnotherRespondent wrote:
There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc.

The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government.

Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy.

There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.
But this isn't the sort of issue you can be emotive about.

Shops closing generally has little to do with any of this. They are closing down because retail has now largely been superseded by internet shopping. That doesn't mean there aren't people employed, just that those jobs are now doing something different to retail.

I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more.

I've already said how this country should grow, but I'll repeat it for your benefit:

To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.
You should investigate the merits of investing........
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc. The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government. Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy. There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.[/p][/quote]But this isn't the sort of issue you can be emotive about. Shops closing generally has little to do with any of this. They are closing down because retail has now largely been superseded by internet shopping. That doesn't mean there aren't people employed, just that those jobs are now doing something different to retail. I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more. I've already said how this country should grow, but I'll repeat it for your benefit: To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.[/p][/quote]You should investigate the merits of investing........ A.Baron-Cohen

2:40pm Mon 16 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
AnotherRespondent wrote:
There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc.

The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government.

Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy.

There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.
But this isn't the sort of issue you can be emotive about.

Shops closing generally has little to do with any of this. They are closing down because retail has now largely been superseded by internet shopping. That doesn't mean there aren't people employed, just that those jobs are now doing something different to retail.

I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more.

I've already said how this country should grow, but I'll repeat it for your benefit:

To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.
You should investigate the merits of investing........
Investing is only any good if you have money to invest. Borrowing money which you can then not pay back without borrowing more money is a false investment doomed to financial failure.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc. The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government. Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy. There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.[/p][/quote]But this isn't the sort of issue you can be emotive about. Shops closing generally has little to do with any of this. They are closing down because retail has now largely been superseded by internet shopping. That doesn't mean there aren't people employed, just that those jobs are now doing something different to retail. I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more. I've already said how this country should grow, but I'll repeat it for your benefit: To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.[/p][/quote]You should investigate the merits of investing........[/p][/quote]Investing is only any good if you have money to invest. Borrowing money which you can then not pay back without borrowing more money is a false investment doomed to financial failure. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

2:47pm Mon 16 Dec 13

James Smith Bowser says...

In defense of Beveridge he would be equally ashamed of how Labour abused his report, in his own words:

The Welfare State.

Beveridge hated the term because to him it implied a ‘Santa Claus’ state. ‘Benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances from the State, is what the people desire,’ he said in the report. He preferred the term ‘social service state’ with an emphasis on duties rather than rights. In the late 1950s, an old friend recorded in his diary that Beveridge had met him for lunch in distress that ‘his original ideas had been mutilated, reversed and taken completely out of his hands although given his name; that he had come to loathe both the caption “Welfare State” and the title “Beveridge Plan” which had become like advertising slogans, which taken together had led many people hopelessly to misunderstand what he had truly worked for’.

He will be spinning in his grave at what Labour did to this country, he believed in the responsibilities of the individual, he did not write a blueprint for people to sit and consume welfare of to be imported from other countries to do so in return for voting Labour.
In defense of Beveridge he would be equally ashamed of how Labour abused his report, in his own words: The Welfare State. Beveridge hated the term because to him it implied a ‘Santa Claus’ state. ‘Benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances from the State, is what the people desire,’ he said in the report. He preferred the term ‘social service state’ with an emphasis on duties rather than rights. In the late 1950s, an old friend recorded in his diary that Beveridge had met him for lunch in distress that ‘his original ideas had been mutilated, reversed and taken completely out of his hands although given his name; that he had come to loathe both the caption “Welfare State” and the title “Beveridge Plan” which had become like advertising slogans, which taken together had led many people hopelessly to misunderstand what he had truly worked for’. He will be spinning in his grave at what Labour did to this country, he believed in the responsibilities of the individual, he did not write a blueprint for people to sit and consume welfare of to be imported from other countries to do so in return for voting Labour. James Smith Bowser

3:14pm Mon 16 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

James Smith Bowser wrote:
In defense of Beveridge he would be equally ashamed of how Labour abused his report, in his own words:

The Welfare State.

Beveridge hated the term because to him it implied a ‘Santa Claus’ state. ‘Benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances from the State, is what the people desire,’ he said in the report. He preferred the term ‘social service state’ with an emphasis on duties rather than rights. In the late 1950s, an old friend recorded in his diary that Beveridge had met him for lunch in distress that ‘his original ideas had been mutilated, reversed and taken completely out of his hands although given his name; that he had come to loathe both the caption “Welfare State” and the title “Beveridge Plan” which had become like advertising slogans, which taken together had led many people hopelessly to misunderstand what he had truly worked for’.

He will be spinning in his grave at what Labour did to this country, he believed in the responsibilities of the individual, he did not write a blueprint for people to sit and consume welfare of to be imported from other countries to do so in return for voting Labour.
Excellent post thank you.
[quote][p][bold]James Smith Bowser[/bold] wrote: In defense of Beveridge he would be equally ashamed of how Labour abused his report, in his own words: The Welfare State. Beveridge hated the term because to him it implied a ‘Santa Claus’ state. ‘Benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances from the State, is what the people desire,’ he said in the report. He preferred the term ‘social service state’ with an emphasis on duties rather than rights. In the late 1950s, an old friend recorded in his diary that Beveridge had met him for lunch in distress that ‘his original ideas had been mutilated, reversed and taken completely out of his hands although given his name; that he had come to loathe both the caption “Welfare State” and the title “Beveridge Plan” which had become like advertising slogans, which taken together had led many people hopelessly to misunderstand what he had truly worked for’. He will be spinning in his grave at what Labour did to this country, he believed in the responsibilities of the individual, he did not write a blueprint for people to sit and consume welfare of to be imported from other countries to do so in return for voting Labour.[/p][/quote]Excellent post thank you. house on the hill

3:17pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...


he did not write a blueprint for people to sit and consume welfare of to be imported from other countries to do so in return for voting Labour.


He may not have *wanted* to do that, but that's most certainly what he did.

The only defence may be that values were different before the welfare state and that he operated within those values, but even a fool would have been able to see that by introducing the welfare state those values would change rapidly and entirely negatively.

It's amazing to think that the welfare state has really only been in existence for around 60 years. That's all it managed to last before self-imploding. You'd think Labour would be rather embarrassed about it, instead of continually just borrowing more money to waste on it.

Future generations will be mystified as to how anyone could ever have thought that giving people a house for free and paying them to sit around doing nothing but having multiple children could EVER have been introduced as national government policy. They'll be fairly angry about it, too, I'd imagine - as they'll still be paying for it and suffering a lower standard of living because of it.

What a lovely 'gift' from the socialists to our grandchildren.
[quote] he did not write a blueprint for people to sit and consume welfare of to be imported from other countries to do so in return for voting Labour. [/quote] He may not have *wanted* to do that, but that's most certainly what he did. The only defence may be that values were different before the welfare state and that he operated within those values, but even a fool would have been able to see that by introducing the welfare state those values would change rapidly and entirely negatively. It's amazing to think that the welfare state has really only been in existence for around 60 years. That's all it managed to last before self-imploding. You'd think Labour would be rather embarrassed about it, instead of continually just borrowing more money to waste on it. Future generations will be mystified as to how anyone could ever have thought that giving people a house for free and paying them to sit around doing nothing but having multiple children could EVER have been introduced as national government policy. They'll be fairly angry about it, too, I'd imagine - as they'll still be paying for it and suffering a lower standard of living because of it. What a lovely 'gift' from the socialists to our grandchildren. Ringer

3:37pm Mon 16 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
AnotherRespondent wrote:
There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc.

The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government.

Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy.

There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.
But this isn't the sort of issue you can be emotive about.

Shops closing generally has little to do with any of this. They are closing down because retail has now largely been superseded by internet shopping. That doesn't mean there aren't people employed, just that those jobs are now doing something different to retail.

I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more.

I've already said how this country should grow, but I'll repeat it for your benefit:

To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.
You should investigate the merits of investing........
Investing is only any good if you have money to invest. Borrowing money which you can then not pay back without borrowing more money is a false investment doomed to financial failure.
Between borrowing to pay for Welfare (pensions included), NHS, schools and borrowing to pay for Capital projects the choice is clear, however this is a political decision, no Leader would sacrifice his party or career for the sake of the country.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: There are many people working hard in this country and income is not a function of this. Income is a demand and supply issue. Nurses work hard, but their income is capped by the government. Same with police, firemen and all manner of jobs. Sorry to get emotive about it, but people's lives are being affected. NOT being emotive is probably some kind of mark of a psychopath - shallow or feigned emotions, a lack of empathy and remorse, etc. The average family income has dropped by £1,600 in the last year. I think that came from the OBR. Another Economist article talked about the 'raw sewage' of statistics being pumped into the public debate by the DWP. Even when he was before the select committee, IDS claimed the WFTC introduction cost £30 billion in fraud. There is no justification for many of the statistics being bandied around by this government. Now, please tell me how the economy is going to grow when the average family has less money to spend in the shops. People don't spend, shops close down, the people who work there have no money to spend in other shops, other places close down... It will keep going. Take a look at Swindon town centre some time and count up how many shops are vacant. It's happening everywhere. This is not good for an economy. There is nothing being done to create jobs. There is just punishment of those who don't have them, although many who work are still on benefits. This is effectively the government subsidising the employer's staff costs If people are being paid less than minimum wage, and many are, someone should be talking to the employer, not blaming the employee for needing a hand to survive.[/p][/quote]But this isn't the sort of issue you can be emotive about. Shops closing generally has little to do with any of this. They are closing down because retail has now largely been superseded by internet shopping. That doesn't mean there aren't people employed, just that those jobs are now doing something different to retail. I do agree with your last point about people working and still needing benefits, that's ludicrous. Perhaps the minimum wage should be increased. Of course that will result in more unemployed as the business will seek to make any increase cost neutral, but those that are still employed will be able to earn a bit more. I've already said how this country should grow, but I'll repeat it for your benefit: To generate more money we need to be doing more trade with other countries, and export more - we are world leaders in science and technology but it is always other countries that invest in these technologies and make the big money from them. We are world leaders in car design and manufacturing know-how, yet all our car manufacturers take their profits abroad. We have a world leading financial services industry, that is the envy of the world, yet most of the people working in the industry are from foreign backgrounds while we have several million unemployed that we pay to do nothing. This kind of thing is what our government should be working on rather than messing around with austerity, white elephant infrastructure projects such as HS2 and other such nonsense.[/p][/quote]You should investigate the merits of investing........[/p][/quote]Investing is only any good if you have money to invest. Borrowing money which you can then not pay back without borrowing more money is a false investment doomed to financial failure.[/p][/quote]Between borrowing to pay for Welfare (pensions included), NHS, schools and borrowing to pay for Capital projects the choice is clear, however this is a political decision, no Leader would sacrifice his party or career for the sake of the country. A.Baron-Cohen

3:41pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...


Between borrowing to pay for Welfare (pensions included), NHS, schools and borrowing to pay for Capital projects the choice is clear, however this is a political decision, no Leader would sacrifice his party or career for the sake of the country.


Very true, sadly, and which is why it's nonsense when the Left keep banging on about 'cuts'. Hardly ANY cuts have been made and many sectors of public spending have actually increased, the NHS included.

Cameron can't/won't do anything because he thinks he has a chance at a second term and the LibDems won't allow any worthwhile improvements to the country in any case.

The problem is taxation - ALL government (and local councils) become delirious when they realise just how much of other people's money they are allowed to throw around at whatever they want to. And when they also discover how much they can borrow.... well, just look around you.
[quote] Between borrowing to pay for Welfare (pensions included), NHS, schools and borrowing to pay for Capital projects the choice is clear, however this is a political decision, no Leader would sacrifice his party or career for the sake of the country. [/quote] Very true, sadly, and which is why it's nonsense when the Left keep banging on about 'cuts'. Hardly ANY cuts have been made and many sectors of public spending have actually increased, the NHS included. Cameron can't/won't do anything because he thinks he has a chance at a second term and the LibDems won't allow any worthwhile improvements to the country in any case. The problem is taxation - ALL government (and local councils) become delirious when they realise just how much of other people's money they are allowed to throw around at whatever they want to. And when they also discover how much they can borrow.... well, just look around you. Ringer

3:41pm Mon 16 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

AnotherRespondent wrote:
The NHS is not part of the welfare state. The NHS is part of the living infrastructure of this country, because healthy employees are also good for an economy.. You might as well say the road network was part of the welfare state.
The NHS should be private, only A&E should be public funded.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: The NHS is not part of the welfare state. The NHS is part of the living infrastructure of this country, because healthy employees are also good for an economy.. You might as well say the road network was part of the welfare state.[/p][/quote]The NHS should be private, only A&E should be public funded. A.Baron-Cohen

3:46pm Mon 16 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:

Between borrowing to pay for Welfare (pensions included), NHS, schools and borrowing to pay for Capital projects the choice is clear, however this is a political decision, no Leader would sacrifice his party or career for the sake of the country.


Very true, sadly, and which is why it's nonsense when the Left keep banging on about 'cuts'. Hardly ANY cuts have been made and many sectors of public spending have actually increased, the NHS included.

Cameron can't/won't do anything because he thinks he has a chance at a second term and the LibDems won't allow any worthwhile improvements to the country in any case.

The problem is taxation - ALL government (and local councils) become delirious when they realise just how much of other people's money they are allowed to throw around at whatever they want to. And when they also discover how much they can borrow.... well, just look around you.
taxation ceiling for citizens written in the the Constitution? I would vote for it......
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote] Between borrowing to pay for Welfare (pensions included), NHS, schools and borrowing to pay for Capital projects the choice is clear, however this is a political decision, no Leader would sacrifice his party or career for the sake of the country. [/quote] Very true, sadly, and which is why it's nonsense when the Left keep banging on about 'cuts'. Hardly ANY cuts have been made and many sectors of public spending have actually increased, the NHS included. Cameron can't/won't do anything because he thinks he has a chance at a second term and the LibDems won't allow any worthwhile improvements to the country in any case. The problem is taxation - ALL government (and local councils) become delirious when they realise just how much of other people's money they are allowed to throw around at whatever they want to. And when they also discover how much they can borrow.... well, just look around you.[/p][/quote]taxation ceiling for citizens written in the the Constitution? I would vote for it...... A.Baron-Cohen

3:52pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...

It'll never happen. No party, or government, would ever want to limit the amount of money they're legally allowed to steal from people.
It'll never happen. No party, or government, would ever want to limit the amount of money they're legally allowed to steal from people. Ringer

4:49pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

Forget about whose fault it is. The issue is how to sort the mess out.
People need to stop breeding, immigration has to stop and money needs spending more wisely.
Forget about whose fault it is. The issue is how to sort the mess out. People need to stop breeding, immigration has to stop and money needs spending more wisely. Davey Gravey

4:51pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Forget about whose fault it is. The issue is how to sort the mess out.
People need to stop breeding, immigration has to stop and money needs spending more wisely.
The ONLY way any of that might possibly come about is if we make sure Labour don't win the next general election.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Forget about whose fault it is. The issue is how to sort the mess out. People need to stop breeding, immigration has to stop and money needs spending more wisely.[/p][/quote]The ONLY way any of that might possibly come about is if we make sure Labour don't win the next general election. Ringer

5:25pm Mon 16 Dec 13

beach1e says...

two of the biggest drains on the public purse concern two areas of the public that are very vocal in defending their rights whilst totally ignoring the rights of other people, those two groups are those on benefits and public servants. They take take take and give back very little, you only have to look at the disgraceful standards in education to see how bad teaching is, yet the amount of money poured into It is huge,likewise, the amount of money paid out in benefits to those that just cant be bothered is a disgrace.Until these drains on money are corrected, there will have to be more cuts. Decent hard working people are the real losers.
two of the biggest drains on the public purse concern two areas of the public that are very vocal in defending their rights whilst totally ignoring the rights of other people, those two groups are those on benefits and public servants. They take take take and give back very little, you only have to look at the disgraceful standards in education to see how bad teaching is, yet the amount of money poured into It is huge,likewise, the amount of money paid out in benefits to those that just cant be bothered is a disgrace.Until these drains on money are corrected, there will have to be more cuts. Decent hard working people are the real losers. beach1e

6:03pm Mon 16 Dec 13

ging999 says...

Why do so many single young girls decide to have a baby ? Because they will be given accommodation and handouts, probably for a long long time and they don't have to contribute a penny to get these handouts.
This has to change, it cannot be right.
Why do so many single young girls decide to have a baby ? Because they will be given accommodation and handouts, probably for a long long time and they don't have to contribute a penny to get these handouts. This has to change, it cannot be right. ging999

6:14pm Mon 16 Dec 13

maxinesmith09 says...

Some great points and discussions raised here, many aspects to this and not just about one point of view. Sustainability of the welfare state is a real issue and without a doubt is what is bringing the whole approach to 'how can we best protect the vulnerable in our society' and then, ‘how can we afford the system’ to the forefront. As this discussion trail reflects, the issues feeding into the bigger picture is extremely complex and I do not believe one approach will make any aspect of this work. The issues of how this country better invests in its home grown innovation, technology and trade is a real one as this is the real 'cash cow' opportunity for the economy, going forward. As for the contributions from any of the sectors, I do not wish to unpack that one right now and get sucked into the distraction and smoke screen that is being created here. What I am interested in is this: From the points raised above, it is clear that the ability to maintain the services provided by the welfare state provisions are now at the highest level of concern; what I am not reading here is any degree of what alternative measures to consider that could either sustain the most critical provision of care, education or sustenance to the most vulnerable in society or, is the against simply saying to 'do away' with the welfare state and not to put anything else in its' place? I am all for having a system that can provide a response to those in the highest need, but I would seriously query how that system is maintained, managed, protected and distributed. Society has changed considerably since the welfare system was developed and in order for this country to be able to provide for its most vulnerable it needs to develop a real phoenix of a system. We must also remember that what is currently in place was developed around a society far removed that the one we all live in today. Instead of calling for systems to be broken down, why not consider how they can be re-built to provide, as intended but not something for all, just for those who need and only then can we focus on the broader issues of the economy, job creation, the role of government and the sectors etc, etc, etc.
Some great points and discussions raised here, many aspects to this and not just about one point of view. Sustainability of the welfare state is a real issue and without a doubt is what is bringing the whole approach to 'how can we best protect the vulnerable in our society' and then, ‘how can we afford the system’ to the forefront. As this discussion trail reflects, the issues feeding into the bigger picture is extremely complex and I do not believe one approach will make any aspect of this work. The issues of how this country better invests in its home grown innovation, technology and trade is a real one as this is the real 'cash cow' opportunity for the economy, going forward. As for the contributions from any of the sectors, I do not wish to unpack that one right now and get sucked into the distraction and smoke screen that is being created here. What I am interested in is this: From the points raised above, it is clear that the ability to maintain the services provided by the welfare state provisions are now at the highest level of concern; what I am not reading here is any degree of what alternative measures to consider that could either sustain the most critical provision of care, education or sustenance to the most vulnerable in society or, is the against simply saying to 'do away' with the welfare state and not to put anything else in its' place? I am all for having a system that can provide a response to those in the highest need, but I would seriously query how that system is maintained, managed, protected and distributed. Society has changed considerably since the welfare system was developed and in order for this country to be able to provide for its most vulnerable it needs to develop a real phoenix of a system. We must also remember that what is currently in place was developed around a society far removed that the one we all live in today. Instead of calling for systems to be broken down, why not consider how they can be re-built to provide, as intended but not something for all, just for those who need and only then can we focus on the broader issues of the economy, job creation, the role of government and the sectors etc, etc, etc. maxinesmith09

9:53pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ellofolks says...

Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling.
Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)
Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling. Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :) Ellofolks

10:16pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Empty Car Park says...

Me too :-)
Me too :-) Empty Car Park

11:33pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ringеr says...

To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die.

That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.
To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die. That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more. Ringеr

11:45pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ellofolks says...

Ringеr wrote:
To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die.

That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.
Money over human life. During an emergency reach for your wallet not the phone. Your a real card as the saying goes. As you say that pretty much wraps it up. I wish you luck with that he he
[quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die. That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.[/p][/quote]Money over human life. During an emergency reach for your wallet not the phone. Your a real card as the saying goes. As you say that pretty much wraps it up. I wish you luck with that he he Ellofolks

1:21am Tue 17 Dec 13

Tyran66 says...

All this protesting on a Monday Lunchtime - my obvious question is why are they not at work like the rest of the population? That picture is Swindon's version of where's Wally aka "Spot the net contributor".

You will make no difference whatsoever, your protest is pointless and fruitless - go and do something constructive with your lives.
All this protesting on a Monday Lunchtime - my obvious question is why are they not at work like the rest of the population? That picture is Swindon's version of where's Wally aka "Spot the net contributor". You will make no difference whatsoever, your protest is pointless and fruitless - go and do something constructive with your lives. Tyran66

8:09am Tue 17 Dec 13

speaker2 says...

Yea and how many of those in the Picture work, and do not get benifits...Not being funny no one who claims benifits of any kind have the right to protest when they don't pay a single penny into the system
Yea and how many of those in the Picture work, and do not get benifits...Not being funny no one who claims benifits of any kind have the right to protest when they don't pay a single penny into the system speaker2

8:11am Tue 17 Dec 13

speaker2 says...

Tyran66 wrote:
All this protesting on a Monday Lunchtime - my obvious question is why are they not at work like the rest of the population? That picture is Swindon's version of where's Wally aka "Spot the net contributor".

You will make no difference whatsoever, your protest is pointless and fruitless - go and do something constructive with your lives.
Thats the beauty of a crap paper Tyran66 because the picture was taken on Saturday, and there for should have been put on the website for Sunday not Monday
[quote][p][bold]Tyran66[/bold] wrote: All this protesting on a Monday Lunchtime - my obvious question is why are they not at work like the rest of the population? That picture is Swindon's version of where's Wally aka "Spot the net contributor". You will make no difference whatsoever, your protest is pointless and fruitless - go and do something constructive with your lives.[/p][/quote]Thats the beauty of a crap paper Tyran66 because the picture was taken on Saturday, and there for should have been put on the website for Sunday not Monday speaker2

8:28am Tue 17 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Ellofolks wrote:
Ringеr wrote:
To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die.

That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.
Money over human life. During an emergency reach for your wallet not the phone. Your a real card as the saying goes. As you say that pretty much wraps it up. I wish you luck with that he he
I dont think anyone minds helping those who really are in need, but most do mind helping those who cant be bothered or who just expect to be helped no matter what. We have a society where more than half are net takers rather than contributors and that must be reduced. No one has a magic wand and it will take time but it must be done or the system will just collapse. we need to grow as an economy and a society, reward hard work, help those truly in need and help those who need temporary help, but also teach the alternative 3 R's of Respect, Responsibility and Reality.

So what constitutes an emergency Ellofolks and how do you define vulnerable? What about those who have chosen not to provide for or look after themselves, how far do we go with that? Everyone has different definitions but ultimately it also has to be affordable and fair.
[quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die. That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.[/p][/quote]Money over human life. During an emergency reach for your wallet not the phone. Your a real card as the saying goes. As you say that pretty much wraps it up. I wish you luck with that he he[/p][/quote]I dont think anyone minds helping those who really are in need, but most do mind helping those who cant be bothered or who just expect to be helped no matter what. We have a society where more than half are net takers rather than contributors and that must be reduced. No one has a magic wand and it will take time but it must be done or the system will just collapse. we need to grow as an economy and a society, reward hard work, help those truly in need and help those who need temporary help, but also teach the alternative 3 R's of Respect, Responsibility and Reality. So what constitutes an emergency Ellofolks and how do you define vulnerable? What about those who have chosen not to provide for or look after themselves, how far do we go with that? Everyone has different definitions but ultimately it also has to be affordable and fair. house on the hill

8:34am Tue 17 Dec 13

zalono says...

Still possible to file an ICC complaint against several British Ministers—namely, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, and Maria Miller for their role in the draconian welfare reforms and the resultant deaths of our society’s most vulnerable.

http://you.38degrees
.org.uk/petitions/le
tter-to-the-icc-at-t
he-hague-re-mistreat
ment-of-the-disabled
-and-sick?
Still possible to file an ICC complaint against several British Ministers—namely, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, and Maria Miller for their role in the draconian welfare reforms and the resultant deaths of our society’s most vulnerable. http://you.38degrees .org.uk/petitions/le tter-to-the-icc-at-t he-hague-re-mistreat ment-of-the-disabled -and-sick? zalono

8:44am Tue 17 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Ringеr wrote:
To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die.

That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.
THIS POST WAS *NOT* MADE BY ME.

I have reported this person to the Adver as they have somehow managed to either register using the same username or have somehow obtained my login details.

The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die. That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.[/p][/quote]THIS POST WAS *NOT* MADE BY ME. I have reported this person to the Adver as they have somehow managed to either register using the same username or have somehow obtained my login details. The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense. Ringer

10:11am Tue 17 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Ellofolks wrote:
Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling.
Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)
"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough.

We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.
[quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling. Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)[/p][/quote]"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough. We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

10:41am Tue 17 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling.
Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)
"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough.

We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.
Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done!
And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling. Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)[/p][/quote]"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough. We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.[/p][/quote]Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done! And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that? A.Baron-Cohen

11:52am Tue 17 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling.
Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)
"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough.

We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.
Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done!
And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?
I didn't say anything about sending people back to their originating country, there just needs to be more of a focused effort on finding jobs for those already in this country.

If other countries want to stop additional Brits from emigrating to their country then that's entirely up to them and I would support that free choice. At the moment as a country we have NO choice.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling. Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)[/p][/quote]"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough. We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.[/p][/quote]Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done! And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?[/p][/quote]I didn't say anything about sending people back to their originating country, there just needs to be more of a focused effort on finding jobs for those already in this country. If other countries want to stop additional Brits from emigrating to their country then that's entirely up to them and I would support that free choice. At the moment as a country we have NO choice. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

12:39pm Tue 17 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling.
Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)
"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough.

We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.
Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done!
And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?
I didn't say anything about sending people back to their originating country, there just needs to be more of a focused effort on finding jobs for those already in this country.

If other countries want to stop additional Brits from emigrating to their country then that's entirely up to them and I would support that free choice. At the moment as a country we have NO choice.
The problem isn't with immigration as such it is squarely with education and attitude to work and learning.
There is an education crisis, schools, colleges and Universities no longer produce the necessary skills that employers in this country need.
The UK is getting a really good deal with immigration......Bri
tain exporting its senior citizens abroad (host countries having to support this ageing population) whilst Britain is receiving healthy and fully educated adults (immigrants) paying taxes to HRMC having cost nothing in terms of education and or health to Britain.
I know this not what people want to hear but unfortunately (for politicians) Britain is not getting such a terrible deal.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling. Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)[/p][/quote]"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough. We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.[/p][/quote]Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done! And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?[/p][/quote]I didn't say anything about sending people back to their originating country, there just needs to be more of a focused effort on finding jobs for those already in this country. If other countries want to stop additional Brits from emigrating to their country then that's entirely up to them and I would support that free choice. At the moment as a country we have NO choice.[/p][/quote]The problem isn't with immigration as such it is squarely with education and attitude to work and learning. There is an education crisis, schools, colleges and Universities no longer produce the necessary skills that employers in this country need. The UK is getting a really good deal with immigration......Bri tain exporting its senior citizens abroad (host countries having to support this ageing population) whilst Britain is receiving healthy and fully educated adults (immigrants) paying taxes to HRMC having cost nothing in terms of education and or health to Britain. I know this not what people want to hear but unfortunately (for politicians) Britain is not getting such a terrible deal. A.Baron-Cohen

6:07pm Tue 17 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling.
Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)
"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough.

We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.
Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done!
And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?
I didn't say anything about sending people back to their originating country, there just needs to be more of a focused effort on finding jobs for those already in this country.

If other countries want to stop additional Brits from emigrating to their country then that's entirely up to them and I would support that free choice. At the moment as a country we have NO choice.
The problem isn't with immigration as such it is squarely with education and attitude to work and learning.
There is an education crisis, schools, colleges and Universities no longer produce the necessary skills that employers in this country need.
The UK is getting a really good deal with immigration......Bri

tain exporting its senior citizens abroad (host countries having to support this ageing population) whilst Britain is receiving healthy and fully educated adults (immigrants) paying taxes to HRMC having cost nothing in terms of education and or health to Britain.
I know this not what people want to hear but unfortunately (for politicians) Britain is not getting such a terrible deal.
But no-one is talking about pensioners.

Personally I'm talking about eh 7m+ unemployed people of working age in this country that are doing nothing. It must be cheaper in the long run to retrain these people and force them into jobs than to continually pay them benefits for doing nothing?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling. Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)[/p][/quote]"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough. We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.[/p][/quote]Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done! And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?[/p][/quote]I didn't say anything about sending people back to their originating country, there just needs to be more of a focused effort on finding jobs for those already in this country. If other countries want to stop additional Brits from emigrating to their country then that's entirely up to them and I would support that free choice. At the moment as a country we have NO choice.[/p][/quote]The problem isn't with immigration as such it is squarely with education and attitude to work and learning. There is an education crisis, schools, colleges and Universities no longer produce the necessary skills that employers in this country need. The UK is getting a really good deal with immigration......Bri tain exporting its senior citizens abroad (host countries having to support this ageing population) whilst Britain is receiving healthy and fully educated adults (immigrants) paying taxes to HRMC having cost nothing in terms of education and or health to Britain. I know this not what people want to hear but unfortunately (for politicians) Britain is not getting such a terrible deal.[/p][/quote]But no-one is talking about pensioners. Personally I'm talking about eh 7m+ unemployed people of working age in this country that are doing nothing. It must be cheaper in the long run to retrain these people and force them into jobs than to continually pay them benefits for doing nothing? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

9:32pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ellofolks says...

house on the hill wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
Ringеr wrote:
To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die.

That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.
Money over human life. During an emergency reach for your wallet not the phone. Your a real card as the saying goes. As you say that pretty much wraps it up. I wish you luck with that he he
I dont think anyone minds helping those who really are in need, but most do mind helping those who cant be bothered or who just expect to be helped no matter what. We have a society where more than half are net takers rather than contributors and that must be reduced. No one has a magic wand and it will take time but it must be done or the system will just collapse. we need to grow as an economy and a society, reward hard work, help those truly in need and help those who need temporary help, but also teach the alternative 3 R's of Respect, Responsibility and Reality.

So what constitutes an emergency Ellofolks and how do you define vulnerable? What about those who have chosen not to provide for or look after themselves, how far do we go with that? Everyone has different definitions but ultimately it also has to be affordable and fair.
Agreed and said without the sensationalism I normally smile at.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die. That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.[/p][/quote]Money over human life. During an emergency reach for your wallet not the phone. Your a real card as the saying goes. As you say that pretty much wraps it up. I wish you luck with that he he[/p][/quote]I dont think anyone minds helping those who really are in need, but most do mind helping those who cant be bothered or who just expect to be helped no matter what. We have a society where more than half are net takers rather than contributors and that must be reduced. No one has a magic wand and it will take time but it must be done or the system will just collapse. we need to grow as an economy and a society, reward hard work, help those truly in need and help those who need temporary help, but also teach the alternative 3 R's of Respect, Responsibility and Reality. So what constitutes an emergency Ellofolks and how do you define vulnerable? What about those who have chosen not to provide for or look after themselves, how far do we go with that? Everyone has different definitions but ultimately it also has to be affordable and fair.[/p][/quote]Agreed and said without the sensationalism I normally smile at. Ellofolks

9:42pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ellofolks says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling.
Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)
"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough.

We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.
Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done!
And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?
I didn't say anything about sending people back to their originating country, there just needs to be more of a focused effort on finding jobs for those already in this country.

If other countries want to stop additional Brits from emigrating to their country then that's entirely up to them and I would support that free choice. At the moment as a country we have NO choice.
The problem isn't with immigration as such it is squarely with education and attitude to work and learning.
There is an education crisis, schools, colleges and Universities no longer produce the necessary skills that employers in this country need.
The UK is getting a really good deal with immigration......Bri

tain exporting its senior citizens abroad (host countries having to support this ageing population) whilst Britain is receiving healthy and fully educated adults (immigrants) paying taxes to HRMC having cost nothing in terms of education and or health to Britain.
I know this not what people want to hear but unfortunately (for politicians) Britain is not getting such a terrible deal.
Wow. What a great educated considered thoughtful correct comment. You sure your on the right site :)
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: Great Christmas spirit and consideration for fellow humans from usual suspects. Winging about those that have too much and pushing down those that have too little. Laughing at attitudes of "What, cost me a few quid I won't really miss to help fellow man, No chance! " None of us can take it with us but before we go we can reflect if we made a difference. Also stats show we need immigration. Well stats from renounced experts not the daily mail. A great eye opener is Don’t Panic - The Truth About Population, from world famous statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling. Great comments chain though gives me a great laugh every time I log on :)[/p][/quote]"Cost me a few quid?". More like costing me several thousand quid, every year. Over 70% of my wage is lost in taxes. I pay enough. We cannot possibly "need" net immigration when we have over 7 million people (officially) unemployed and sitting around doing nothing. If we were close to full employment (under 2 million unemployed) I'd agree with you that we need immigration, but as it stands we should be training those that we are currently paying to do those jobs.[/p][/quote]Close the borders and solve all the problems in the UK, well done! And imagine for one moment, that all British expats retired or not, are sent packing back to the UK......are we ready for that?[/p][/quote]I didn't say anything about sending people back to their originating country, there just needs to be more of a focused effort on finding jobs for those already in this country. If other countries want to stop additional Brits from emigrating to their country then that's entirely up to them and I would support that free choice. At the moment as a country we have NO choice.[/p][/quote]The problem isn't with immigration as such it is squarely with education and attitude to work and learning. There is an education crisis, schools, colleges and Universities no longer produce the necessary skills that employers in this country need. The UK is getting a really good deal with immigration......Bri tain exporting its senior citizens abroad (host countries having to support this ageing population) whilst Britain is receiving healthy and fully educated adults (immigrants) paying taxes to HRMC having cost nothing in terms of education and or health to Britain. I know this not what people want to hear but unfortunately (for politicians) Britain is not getting such a terrible deal.[/p][/quote]Wow. What a great educated considered thoughtful correct comment. You sure your on the right site :) Ellofolks

9:49pm Tue 17 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Blimey I didnt get completely crucfied! I may have differing opinions to many, but i also see common sense and reality as very important in any change. I hate politics and polititians for all the arrogance, self servance and votes over doing whats right and the whole system of governemt where they can throw away the manifesto they were elected on on the first day in office and just do what they like.

we need a balance of cuts and growth, I also have no time for the waste and inneficiency of the public sector i wasted too many years working in, so much more could be provided for less money if they ran it like a real business with competition and responsibility for their decisions, but that will never happen. The ones who can change it are the ones that need to be got rid of both nationally and locally. A flawed system that wont change. sadly
Blimey I didnt get completely crucfied! I may have differing opinions to many, but i also see common sense and reality as very important in any change. I hate politics and polititians for all the arrogance, self servance and votes over doing whats right and the whole system of governemt where they can throw away the manifesto they were elected on on the first day in office and just do what they like. we need a balance of cuts and growth, I also have no time for the waste and inneficiency of the public sector i wasted too many years working in, so much more could be provided for less money if they ran it like a real business with competition and responsibility for their decisions, but that will never happen. The ones who can change it are the ones that need to be got rid of both nationally and locally. A flawed system that wont change. sadly house on the hill

9:49pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ringеr says...

Ringer wrote:
Ringеr wrote:
To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die.

That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.
THIS POST WAS *NOT* MADE BY ME.

I have reported this person to the Adver as they have somehow managed to either register using the same username or have somehow obtained my login details.

The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense.
THIS POST *WAS* MADE BY ME
I have reported this person to the Adver for being a right-wing extremist with an unswerving hatred of anyone in need of *anything*. The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die. That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.[/p][/quote]THIS POST WAS *NOT* MADE BY ME. I have reported this person to the Adver as they have somehow managed to either register using the same username or have somehow obtained my login details. The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense.[/p][/quote]THIS POST *WAS* MADE BY ME I have reported this person to the Adver for being a right-wing extremist with an unswerving hatred of anyone in need of *anything*. The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense. Ringеr

7:31am Wed 18 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Ringеr wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Ringеr wrote:
To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die.

That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.
THIS POST WAS *NOT* MADE BY ME.

I have reported this person to the Adver as they have somehow managed to either register using the same username or have somehow obtained my login details.

The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense.
THIS POST *WAS* MADE BY ME
I have reported this person to the Adver for being a right-wing extremist with an unswerving hatred of anyone in need of *anything*. The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense.
Very amusing.
[quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringеr[/bold] wrote: To wrap things up then, all you socialist, left-wing, Marxist, Trotskyite, Arthur Scargill types just need to crawl back under your stones and die. That'll make it cheaper for all decent hard working people to live and with every ne'er-do-well under lock and key we can look forward to a life of utopian grey-suited conservatism for ever more.[/p][/quote]THIS POST WAS *NOT* MADE BY ME. I have reported this person to the Adver as they have somehow managed to either register using the same username or have somehow obtained my login details. The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense.[/p][/quote]THIS POST *WAS* MADE BY ME I have reported this person to the Adver for being a right-wing extremist with an unswerving hatred of anyone in need of *anything*. The Adver have so far done nothing about it but, please, don't be so daft as to fall for this wind-up merchant's nonsense.[/p][/quote]Very amusing. Ringer

11:32am Wed 18 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Interesting poll results from YouGov. Looks like the protesters against the cuts are now the minority.

Cue Davey Gravey claiming that it can't be true because he doesn't agree with it:


For the first time in three years, more people now say the way the government is cutting spending to reduce the deficit is good for the economy than bad

In the latest survey, 42% say cuts are good for the economy while 37% say they are bad.


Source: http://yougov.co.uk/
news/2013/12/17/more
-now-think-cuts-are-
good-bad-economy/
Interesting poll results from YouGov. Looks like the protesters against the cuts are now the minority. Cue Davey Gravey claiming that it can't be true because he doesn't agree with it: [quote] For the first time in three years, more people now say the way the government is cutting spending to reduce the deficit is good for the economy than bad In the latest survey, 42% say cuts are good for the economy while 37% say they are bad. [/quote] Source: http://yougov.co.uk/ news/2013/12/17/more -now-think-cuts-are- good-bad-economy/ Ringer

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree