Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Wotchoo think about that then, eh?
Here's a poster: http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2013/01/~/media/Images/Content%20Images/News/Campaigns/080113large.ashx
If that one sentence poster is accurate and is in no way bending the truth and/or ommitting parts of it, that will render the entire concept of gainful employment pointless! We must march upon parliament and stop these madmen!
As all us workers need to do is campaign to get our wages increased, and everyone will be happy! Or we could all take part in a massive race to the bottom, which is far more fun.
Only three posts before "race to the bottom" reared its ugly, cliched head.
You'd have to be really cynical to come up with and propogate the lie that people on benefits =/= working people.
And you'd be really, really drool-dribblingly stupid to believe it.
was it 15% when they came in? can't remember.
either way, they still put it up and it affects lower earners more than direct taxation does.
and none of that really changes that low paid private sector jobs aren't enough to get by on and the state has to prop people up. so.
so a few months before the election. I remember it well as I had to be on call over midnight in case anything went wrong at work.
It's why I added one in the title of this thread.
"Last night I fucked your mum," would you ask who "Last night I" is?
The fact that wages should do as well is neither here nor there.
and inflation goes up, then it's a cut in benefits. And considering what they've done to the poor, disabled and elderly with benefits, another cut takes the piss.
So Labour are quite right to do this. They're not getting bags of cash, it's just allowing poor and vulnerable people to eat and heat their homes.
have the elderly been hit on benefits? I was under the impression that they're pretty much the one group in society that've been protected wholesale from the government's austerity programme? (I know that social services budgets locally have been cut).
it's the future elderly being hit by that, not those who already benefit from the extra tax free allowance.
the goverment has had interest rates at, as near as makes no difference, zero percent for an unprecendented amount of time, in order to shore up the balance sheets of banks. And simultaneously pumped money into the economy in a fiscal stimulus that basically devalues the purchasing power of the pound.
I'd say that pensioners are those who stand to lose most by this by both getting no return on savings and also having the value of their pensions inflated away.
thought this was interesting:
On average, people apparently think 41% of the social security budget goes to those who are unemployed, and 27% is spent on fraudulent claims, whereas the true figures are 3% and 0.7% respectively.
Oojimaflop is trying to make between his point and yours.
it's 2 years old so the figures are off and there's no percentages.
Great work, IT department.
in the business world.
so much money
£159bn spent on benefits
£4.91 spent on JSA... i.e 3.29%
In comparison, just over half of our welfare budget goes on Pensions and Pension Credits (51.77%)
I've never taken much truck with the DWP's own figures myself.
post a picture of Sid Vicious under some general comment I make.
If you can't defend you point son, don't make it.
How about tackling the points I make?
I don't think a picture counts, either.
Was for every new member to burn a £50 note in front of a tramp.
Not really evidence you can trust.
On that basis, the poster is very much true.
The Tories are cutting masses of public sector jobs. 70,000 nurses included. This is a sector that employs up to 1 in every 4 people in certain areas. It's the biggest employer in Britain. Then with all these people who get made redundant, they get their benefits cut and are stigmatised for being "scroungers" when the government took away their job in the first place.
The double dip recession has been PROVEN to be Osborne's doing. You cut job and freeze pay and no-one spends, so the economy doesn't grow.
They've introduced "work fair" schemes so firms can get people to work for free, so companies benefit but workers don't whilst removing the need for further jobs.
Yet whilst all this is happening, they're also taking disabled people and changing their status to job seeker EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE REMOVED THE JOBS.
It's utter bullshit. Come on CG, answer me on this. Be the big man. Or post a pic of Sid Vicious.
cross-party consensus and something that would have happened anyway regardless.
because this government would have implemented the cap whether Labour voted in favour or against.
they would also have implemented it.
Can you point in the direction of whatever it is you're using to predict with all certainty what they'd have done in their first budget after the election? Remember that rhetoric and policy are very different to actions.
Had Alistair Darling announced it in his last budget without anyone noticing or something?
so in as much as it functions as a joke, I'd say yes.
He has misused the joke here on both counts.
But colour me surprised that I needed to explain that.
but it's not funny. It's lame. So I've started doing it. See how unfunny it is?
Because your timing and context is off. And I put some effort in choosing a relevant picture of a punk to the context in which i'm making the joke.
So I agree, if you tell a joke completely incorrectly, it may not be overly amusing.
so using it out of context (dunno what you mean about timing, it's the same as always) is funny. It's mainly done rile you. Which has worked. Thus funny.
I find that sentence a bit jarring...
I blame immigration
we should petition call-me-dave for some better ones
just office time wasters.
the proper trolls have ministerial briefs
I would enjoy it greatly.
Hollande's 80% tax rate seems a bit mental though.
and it's been blocked by the constitutional court... (rightly so, it is bonkers)
"new mothers on £12,000 a year are losing £1,300 during pregnancy and the baby's first year via cuts to maternity pay, pregnancy support and tax credits. They are also losing a further £422 from cuts to child benefit over the same period."
2. Don't have children if you can't afford to do so.
Mr Speaker, it should be common ground that all Western economies need to reshape their social contract to meet the challenges of economic competition and demographic change.
Expanding childcare versus higher child benefit; Housing Benefit versus housebuilding; long term care versus reliefs and benefits for old age. In each case, we need to choose.
This Bill invites us to make three judgments: about fairness, about affordability, and about politics.
The Chancellor said in the Autumn Statement the Bill was about distinguishing working people from those who are “asleep, living a life on benefits”. Yet most of the people hit by this Bill are working. So that argument is blown out of the water.
And what of the idea that 3120 people in South Shields on Income Support, and 4200 on Job Seekers Allowance, are choosing a Life of Riley.
The PM himself claimed that the reforms of two years ago ended the “option” of life on benefits. The Government’s own figures show the level of fraud to be 0.7 per cent – the figure is lower for immigrants. And DWP’s own figures show over 10 job seekers for every vacancy advertised in the local South Shields Jobcentre. That’s not fair.
What of affordability? The Government says the alternative to this Bill is higher borrowing or higher taxation. But that is not true.
The Government have projected the cost of all benefits, all tax credits and all tax reliefs. I am happy to debate priorities within that envelope. A proper debate – about choices not the total sum.
The measures before us raise £3.7 billion in 2015/16 from poor and lower middle income people.
Meanwhile the Chancellor has cut tax relief for pension contributions – but only by £200m in 2013/14 rising to £600 million in 2015/16. The cumulative saving between now and 2015/16 from the richest is £1.1bn - compared to £5.6bn for those on benefit and/or receiving tax credits.
So this is not equality of sacrifice. The Chancellor reminds me of the man in the 1929 election poster, standing above others on a ladder. Water is up to the neck of the man on the bottom rung, while the man at the top shouts “Equality - let’s all go down one rung”.
The Government have made a great deal of the point that no one should receive more from benefits than the average wage of £26 000. But they offer tax relief of £40 000 – for those with £40 000 to spare. That costs £33bn a year.
If we limited tax relief on pension contributions to £26 000 a year, we would have no need for this Bill.
But this rancid Bill is not about fairness or affordability. It reeks of politics, the politics of dividing lines that the current Government spent so much time denouncing when they were in Opposition in the dog days of the Brown Administration. It says a lot that within two years it has fallen into the same trap.
We all know the style. Invent your own enemy. Spin your campaign to a newspaper editor short on facts – or high on prejudice. “Frame” the debate.
But the enemy within is unemployment not the unemployed. And I don’t want to live in a society where we pretend that we can enjoy the good life while our neighbours lose their life chances.
It is bad enough to have no economic growth or 420 000 young long term unemployed or rising levels of child poverty or declining levels of social mobility.
It is hard to stomach a Government that takes no responsibility for their mistakes.
It is intolerable then to blame the unemployed for their poverty and our deficit.
And that is why I will vote for the amendment and against the Bill tonight.