Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Osborne was not the one who linked Philpott to the benefits system. The question put to him while on a visit to the City was whether Mick Philpott was a "vile product" of the benefit system. Considering the question, his answer was pretty considered and mild.

Hays,

You are measuring Osborne’s reply against your own standards.

Blaming the person who asked the question for one’s own response is naivety. His answer reflected his views and position. He was foolish to have given that reply.

He is supposed to be one of the leading lights of the tory party and was until recently chalked in by the many of the tory party “elite” to be the replacement for Cameron.


His answer was crass and the response he made due to grasping any opportunity to advance his own right winged fascist position.

Philpotts, “developed” into a psychopath, whose “conscious” decisions appeared to allow him to abuse the “Welfare System” and other elements of society.


(One of the characteristics of psychopathology is short term opportunism.) (A bit like Osborne’s reaction.)

It would seem reasonable to try to reduce the possibilities of the Philpotts’ “type” actions, but the naive right winged attempt of slashing of “welfare support” for the “weakest and probably most incompetent” in society, are likely to produce greater problems than they cure.

The right winged ideologues are using cynically using the “case” as an opportunity to further their slash and burn policies.

Although such actions may be seen as giving you and others immediate gratification, these actions with other incompetent actions of the present government many based upon of the ill thought-out ideology, with little thought to the consequences of those actions, are probably creating more long term problems than they are resolving.

(I suggest you relate back to the McMillan period of government and its more pragmatic form of “Conservatism” with its economic practices and ongoing thought-out long term policies, but recognition of social responsibilities.)

He was just replying to a posed link to the Philpott case. The only part he mentioned in relation to the suggested link was that society should look at funding similar lifestyles. All a fuss about nothing.

" All a fuss about nothing."

Or "it is silly".
Are these expressions handed down from head office to be repeated as often as possible, at any time when you can't construct a reasonable reply?

Like the repeated whine from of, "it is all down to the previous government", from the tory ridden coalition government, when trying to excuse themselves from their ongoing U-turns and failing of its economic policies.

Notice, other than for some party zealots, the public is beginning to groan more and more when the remarks are made.

------------------------------

Osborne should pay attention to tax evasion and avoidance, the latter being taken to new heights, and many liken these forms of tax evasion to the practices of old fashioned thiefdoms and banana republics.

Large and small companies and individuals avoiding due taxes due on “income and wealth” earned and accumulated at the expense of the UK population to far off islands and other tax havens,.

Many of the above remaining politically active and involved in control of direction of political parties and the general democracy of the UK. (Financing of political advertisement in the last and previous elections can be seen as this influence, but at least it appears one or more participants seem to be giving up on the “tory “party after evaluating its “success” since the last election.
=====================

Considering the cost to the country by the abuse of the “Welfare Services” by a
relatively small number of scroungers, it would appear to be little in comparison with the cost of Tax evasions and avoidance schemes.

The latter should be addressed, as well as reforms to the Welfare System.
 

The same tax avoidance methods are used by Conservative supporters as are used by Labour ones. How much did Labour do to stop tax avoidance in all their years in officer - answer, nothing.

There is little that can be done unilaterally to stop tax avoidance of companies. The process has been going on for as long as companies have had a multinational nature. Differential pricing and licensing across borders is almost impossible to prevent.

fred
Public opinion is not on your side. Six out of ten people think benefits are too generous.

What really bugs me about this welfare debate is how the Torries are trying to lay the blame at Labours feet historicaly.

The fact is this....... THATCHER created a services economy with 7.5 million people unemployed and used the tax receipts from North Sea Oil (which should have been used to modernise the economy) to beat the Unions and pay for unemployment benefit.

She then saw the error of her ways tried to fiddle the unemployment figures by making changes (31 in all) but then ended up creating Incapacity Benefit to cut the 7.5 million in half.

Yes she then presented unemployment as a total of just over 3 million to con the eloctorate BUT the biggest evil of all was taking place very quietly in the back ground ie, that of the creation of 2 working adults per house (man and wife) and the creation of the the monster the 'LATCH DOOR KEY KID' the fore runner and spawner of todays feral youth.

She in effect created a society where kids were a add on a toy in effect.

Little attention was paid to them discipline at school got out of control nannys were brought in creches at places of work created, and educational standards suffered.

Basicaly the 2 working adults per house was greed,they had to have the very best and beat the neighbours next door even if this meant taking on more and more debt.

The debt spirraled out of control and wasnt helped by banks offering packages that should have never been offered in the first place eg, 120% mortgages etc etc.

This was the fault of banks and successive governments as credit was eased and more and more packages dripped down to the lower poorer classes who of course took the freebies as they saw people above them getting all these glittering newbie deals.

So in conclusion on looking back... Margaret Hilda Thatcher kicked off all the problems of today.

Hypocritical or What.

The Government are screaming for the heads of 3 bankers responsible for their part in the banking crisis.
Financial regulators should consider banning three top HBOS bankers from senior roles in the financial sector, an influential committee has said.

Sir James Crosby, Andy Hornby and Lord Stevenson were guilty of a "colossal failure" of management.

Their excuse is, they were unaware.

BUT

David Cameron and many MP's are heaping praise on the NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson who has admitted personal failings over Britain’s biggest hospital scandal where 1,200 patients were died unnecessarily.

His excuse is, he was unaware

Mind you Crosby, Hornby and Stevenson cost the country a lot of money, whereas Nicholson only cost the lives of 1,200 people.

Me thinks priorities are wrong!

I would ban all 4 from ever holding a responsible post again.

sticky - you're argument is tenuous at best ..... MT left power in 1990 ..... my basic arithmetic tells me that was 22/23 years ago -effectively a whole generation back

labour was in power from 1997 to 2010, so they had oodles of time to change anything they didn't like - and felt was in the best interests of the country ..... it pretty much follows, that if they change or reverse something, they figured it wasn't so bad after all ..... not quite fair i will accept

i will also accept that no gov't of any hue every gets things completely right .... it's a total impossibility, not least because far-reaching, often international events occur over which no gov't in isolation has any control

I don't know where goldfinger gets his figures from, but they have no basis in fact. I have just look at the figures from the ONS and even the Guardian and they look nothing like goldfingers.

Cynic, Thatcher created the husband and wife 80 hour week.

This was massive at the time and now.

Like I said the spawn of the 80s/ 90s generation are the Phillpots of now.


AND THATCHER was the most disliked PM ever (even more than Brown) BEFORE the Falklands.

goldfinger seems like spawn of Fred.

I see that scum Haystacks keeps posting after me. he he he he .

Idiot still hasnt caught on Ive filtered him. (6th months back)

sticky - i've just noticed a long article on the internet courtesy of harriet harman ..... i won't c+p it as it's quite a long read, but clearly your labour buddies have finally woken up to the fact that their welfare state policies just do not stack up and are now all set to change them .... i'll read it all again, but these "new policies" would seem to reflect what the current chaps are proposing, albeit that labour will have its own tweaks - as is to be expected, and would be the case with any opposition party

===========

i may c+p the above and endeavour to edit it it to make it more reader-friendly

Britain's Labour says welfare should be linked to contributions
Britain's opposition Labour Party is set to overhaul its welfare policies to link state help to individual contributions.
Harriet Harman said people in work should go to the top of social housing waiting lists and the unemployed should take up job offers or lose benefits after two years.
Labour's proposals mark a break from the principle that certain social benefits are universal
Labour's welfare policies would ...... provid(e) stronger incentives to seek employment
"Work should pay. Secondly, there should be an obligation to take work," HH said. "There should be support through a contributory principle, for people putting in to the system as well as taking out."

David Cameron said the welfare system had "lost its way" and had become a "lifestyle choice for some".

============

here you are ..... DC's comment at the end is certainly what many people feel and believe, though no doubt some clever statistician would/could prove otherwise - lies, damned lies and statistics!

anyway, reading the above, it's hard to determine any difference in principle to what is already on the table ..... no real surprise there, in all honesty - though when talking politics and politicians, that is something of an oxymoron

Ive read it and its what I would agree with.

Contributution based model.

That means people like you keep your bus pass and cold weather payment. Millionaires if they have paid they get it as far as Im concerned.

Nothing wrong with that if you HAVE PAID FOR IT.

What I cant stand is these foreigners coming in, getting benefits they havent paid for and NHS visits, and also sending it back to Poland etc etc.

The torries tho are hitting the poor disabled worthy WHO HAVE PAID in the NI System.

lOOK at Incapacity benefit, after 1 year those on contributory benefit lose it if they have a private pension whilst those who havent paid for a private pension still will get it.

That cannot be right. And Its I D Smiths policy...........PATHETIC and UNFAIR.

it's a shame you are incapable of reading something objectively and commenting in like manner

there are certainly two people of my acquaintance where disability allowance (refusal actually) has been strangely applied - and i dare say that is equally so with other allowances .... that said, i am far from convinced that the bods doing the dishing out are especially following any party political line

as in law, logic and fairness do not necessarily hold hands

============

actually, i would not think it at all unreasonable if cold weather payments and maybe even bus passes and the ilk were income related or somesuch ...... do ex pats also get these little freebies?

YES they do and have PAID for them or their fathers have. I dont give a toss if they reside in sunny Spain. If you have paid in you get.

If you havent paid in you do not get.

Simple as that and far cheaper to administrate.

As for benefit how wrong you are, a set strict set of rules and conditions to pass.
Cynic I worked 6 years in the system. I now work 10 hours per week as a volunteer counseling advising.

It seems to me you are the one whos getting caught up in all the tory propoganda. Even the Lib Dems part of the government can see through it.

not at all ..... i have always thought for myself ....

on another tack, i do question considerably whether you have the ability to give dispassionate and objective advice to those who seek your assistance in whatever field it is in which you now operate .... your somehwat rabid postings here indicate that you would be incapable of so doing

I suppose at the end of the day it is going to be very difficult for a Conservative voter to agree with a Labour voter and visa versa. You will be arguing till the cows come home and they may not at this rate. :-))