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.

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. :-))

Put it this way, plain and simple - stop letting all these people in who have never contributed, give the abled unemployed something - but make them do some sort of work to pay for their hand outs to at least get them out of their beds and stop penalising the ones who cannot work due to no fault of their own i.e. ill health. As it is Sunday, Amen. Tony Blair took the 4th child allowace remember!!!!! and categorically stated on a TV interview "why shouldn't we". End of sermon. Oh! sorry give any man the snip who wants to produce more than 6 children.

DC sorry I want to make it clear Im a floating voter. Ive voted for both twice.

I dont vote at local elections.

Its just this present lot.........they are useless.

Just look at the last but one budget. Totaly pathetic....... and then you get back benchers having a go at the 2 rich boys.

They have no respect for those lower down the chain than themselves.

Without UKIP this lot are gonners at the next election.

3 monkies yes spot on. I have no time for the real work shirkers like the philpotts etc, they are scum but then again so is George Osbourne for trying to rake it up out of context and trying to divide and rule.

The lowest of the low.

DC - i like to think that i have the ability to think and do not necessarily agree partially or even at all with what a tory gov't may or may not do ..... i am also not incapable of thinking that parties of other hues sometimes or even often have good ideas worth consideration

from my earlier post, it is certainly clear that the labour chaps have suddenly admitted to considerable areas of agreement with the present gov't with regard to its method of overhauling the welfare system .... even HH surprisingly engages her brain from time to time

Labour is panicking over welfare: it's flying by the seat of Ed Miliband's pants, except Ed isn't wearing any




By Dan HodgesPoliticsLast updated: April 7th, 2013

Comment on thisComment on this article



Ed Miliband, absence of underpants just out of shot, has flipped 180 degrees on welfare

This morning the Observer splashes on reports that Labour is getting tough on welfare. “Labour plans radical shift over welfare state payouts”, is the headline above a story from Toby Helm and Daniel Boffey which claims that “A radical shakeup of the welfare state, under which benefit payments to those out of work or on low incomes would vary according to their past contributions to the state, is being considered by the Labour party.”

It’s accompanied by an article from the shadow work and pension secretary, Liam Byrne, in which he says: “These are desperate times for the government and I expected a desperate argument from George Osborne last week. This was when he would slash not only Britain's vital social safety net, but also help for working people – just at the very moment when he hands out tax cuts for the very rich. It's a vicious strategy and horrible politics.”

Is Liam Byrne having a laugh? It’s the Tories who are desperate, is it? It's George Osborne and David Cameron who are guilty of “horrible politics”?

Three months ago the Observer splashed on a rather different Labour welfare story. “Ed Miliband to wage war on George Osborne over benefit cuts”, the paper informed us: “Ed Miliband is to put Labour at the head of a national revolt to kill off the chancellor's latest benefit cuts as church leaders and leading charities unite in protest against the assault on welfare”. Not a word on any “radical shifts” in policy. Nor so much as a peep about “matching rights with responsibilities”.

So what’s changed? What has occurred in the last 12 weeks to bring about this “radical” change in Labour’s stance on welfare?

Mick Philpott. “Shameless Mick” if you prefer. It has taken the killing of six innocent children, public outrage over their deaths, and the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer making political capital out of the tragedy for Ed Miliband to finally think “Hmmm, I think I might need to do something about this welfare stuff after all.”

Actually, if Labour’s shift in stance was the product of three months' careful deliberation, that wouldn’t be so bad. But it isn’t. It’s the product of a panic that has engulfed the Labour leadership over the past 72 hours.

On Tuesday morning Labour seriously thought they were winning the welfare debate. Ed Miliband’s senior advisors had heard Iain Duncan Smith’s gaffe on the Today program in which he’d claimed he could live on £53 a week, and were heartened. But then they were informed a petition challenging him to make good on his boast had passed 200,000 signatures. And they started to talk about a “defining moment” in the welfare debate.

But then Philpott was convicted, the Daily Mail made the welfare state an accessory to the fact, and Shameless George Osborne moved in for the kill. Labour’s initial response was to downplay the whole issue. Then they lost their heads, and dispatched Ed Balls to launch an hysterical attack on Osborne, driving the Chancellor’s comments to the top of the news bulletins, and making the Labour Party look like they had been employed as Mick Philpott’s defence attorneys.

Now we have the spectacle of Labour trying to recast itself as the party of welfare reform. Suddenly it’s Labour that wants to “make work pay”, is talking of responsibility at the bottom and threatening to remove people’s benefits. And good for Liam Byrne, because this is where Labour should be.

But it’s too late. Much too late. The welfare debate is over. And Labour has lost it.

Or rather, it’s Ed Miliband who has lost it. In his Observer report, Toby Helm states, “the Observer understands that detailed work is under way in the party's policy review on how to revolutionise the way the system works and address concerns that it promotes a 'something-for-nothing' culture.”

And he’s right, that work is under way. But it’s been under way for months. For well over a year in fact. And time and time and time again Ed Miliband has been urged to publicly sign up to this agenda. And time and time and time again, Ed Miliband has refused.

Remember that narrative that was being lovingly crafted last year about how it’s Ed Miliband who was making the political weather, Ed Miliband who gets all the big calls right? It’s fantasy. In reality Ed Miliband is terrified of his own shadow, and scared of getting caught in the rain.

Labour’s welfare debacle has revealed the true Ed Miliband. Timid, indecisive, fearful of conflict with the Left. This is not a Thick Of It sketch. Decisions on a major policy like welfare are being shaped by one Radio 4 interview, a poll on the Downing Street website and a conviction for manslaughter. When Hugh Grant was negotiating with Miliband he must have thought he was taking sweets from a child.

It’s a joke. Labour doesn’t have a plan or a strategy. It’s flying by the seat of its leader’s pants. Except its leader isn’t wearing any pants. Labour’s Emperor doesn’t have a stitch on. And yet his activists and his MPs and even some commentators catch a glimpse of a 10-point opinion poll lead and gush, “My, my, isn’t young master Miliband fashionably attired.”

Over the past couple of days the Left has been in ferment at David Cameron and George Osborne’s decision to link welfare to the Philpott killings. But at least Cameron and Osborne are being consistent in their cynicism, and the Philpott case is only being used to drive the presentation of their case on welfare. Ed Miliband’s response to Philpott has been to flip 180 degrees and launch an entirely new policy initiative.

If Ed Miliband wants to shift Labour’s stance on welfare, fine. In my view it’s what’s needed in political and policy terms. If he wants to take a principled stand in defence of welfare, that’s OK too. It will be politically suicidal and could well cost him the next election, but I could at least respect his stance. But Ed Miliband should be displaying the strength of leadership to make his mind up on these issues, not letting Mick Philpott make the decision for him.

This morning Liam Byrne has written “[George Osborne] disgusted me and demeaned the office of chancellor by using the crimes of Mick Philpott to support his attacks on people who claim benefit.” But if he hadn’t done that, Liam, you wouldn’t have written that article, and Ed Miliband wouldn’t have given you the green light to start talking about a new Labour party policy on welfare. It’s George Osborne who is demeaning his office? Really?

Read more by Dan Hodges on Telegraph Blogs
Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter


Tags: Ed Miliband, George Osborne, labour, Labour Party, Liam Byrne, Mick Philpott, welfare























Share





109

















Facebook





0

















Twitter





109



Labour is panicking over welfare: it's flying by the seat of Ed Miliband's pants, except Ed isn't wearing any




By Dan HodgesPoliticsLast updated: April 7th, 2013

Comment on thisComment on this article



Ed Miliband, absence of underpants just out of shot, has flipped 180 degrees on welfare

This morning the Observer splashes on reports that Labour is getting tough on welfare. “Labour plans radical shift over welfare state payouts”, is the headline above a story from Toby Helm and Daniel Boffey which claims that “A radical shakeup of the welfare state, under which benefit payments to those out of work or on low incomes would vary according to their past contributions to the state, is being considered by the Labour party.”

It’s accompanied by an article from the shadow work and pension secretary, Liam Byrne, in which he says: “These are desperate times for the government and I expected a desperate argument from George Osborne last week. This was when he would slash not only Britain's vital social safety net, but also help for working people – just at the very moment when he hands out tax cuts for the very rich. It's a vicious strategy and horrible politics.”

Is Liam Byrne having a laugh? It’s the Tories who are desperate, is it? It's George Osborne and David Cameron who are guilty of “horrible politics”?

Three months ago the Observer splashed on a rather different Labour welfare story. “Ed Miliband to wage war on George Osborne over benefit cuts”, the paper informed us: “Ed Miliband is to put Labour at the head of a national revolt to kill off the chancellor's latest benefit cuts as church leaders and leading charities unite in protest against the assault on welfare”. Not a word on any “radical shifts” in policy. Nor so much as a peep about “matching rights with responsibilities”.

So what’s changed? What has occurred in the last 12 weeks to bring about this “radical” change in Labour’s stance on welfare?

Mick Philpott. “Shameless Mick” if you prefer. It has taken the killing of six innocent children, public outrage over their deaths, and the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer making political capital out of the tragedy for Ed Miliband to finally think “Hmmm, I think I might need to do something about this welfare stuff after all.”

Actually, if Labour’s shift in stance was the product of three months' careful deliberation, that wouldn’t be so bad. But it isn’t. It’s the product of a panic that has engulfed the Labour leadership over the past 72 hours.

On Tuesday morning Labour seriously thought they were winning the welfare debate. Ed Miliband’s senior advisors had heard Iain Duncan Smith’s gaffe on the Today program in which he’d claimed he could live on £53 a week, and were heartened. But then they were informed a petition challenging him to make good on his boast had passed 200,000 signatures. And they started to talk about a “defining moment” in the welfare debate.

But then Philpott was convicted, the Daily Mail made the welfare state an accessory to the fact, and Shameless George Osborne moved in for the kill. Labour’s initial response was to downplay the whole issue. Then they lost their heads, and dispatched Ed Balls to launch an hysterical attack on Osborne, driving the Chancellor’s comments to the top of the news bulletins, and making the Labour Party look like they had been employed as Mick Philpott’s defence attorneys.

Now we have the spectacle of Labour trying to recast itself as the party of welfare reform. Suddenly it’s Labour that wants to “make work pay”, is talking of responsibility at the bottom and threatening to remove people’s benefits. And good for Liam Byrne, because this is where Labour should be.

But it’s too late. Much too late. The welfare debate is over. And Labour has lost it.

Or rather, it’s Ed Miliband who has lost it. In his Observer report, Toby Helm states, “the Observer understands that detailed work is under way in the party's policy review on how to revolutionise the way the system works and address concerns that it promotes a 'something-for-nothing' culture.”

And he’s right, that work is under way. But it’s been under way for months. For well over a year in fact. And time and time and time again Ed Miliband has been urged to publicly sign up to this agenda. And time and time and time again, Ed Miliband has refused.

Remember that narrative that was being lovingly crafted last year about how it’s Ed Miliband who was making the political weather, Ed Miliband who gets all the big calls right? It’s fantasy. In reality Ed Miliband is terrified of his own shadow, and scared of getting caught in the rain.

Labour’s welfare debacle has revealed the true Ed Miliband. Timid, indecisive, fearful of conflict with the Left. This is not a Thick Of It sketch. Decisions on a major policy like welfare are being shaped by one Radio 4 interview, a poll on the Downing Street website and a conviction for manslaughter. When Hugh Grant was negotiating with Miliband he must have thought he was taking sweets from a child.

It’s a joke. Labour doesn’t have a plan or a strategy. It’s flying by the seat of its leader’s pants. Except its leader isn’t wearing any pants. Labour’s Emperor doesn’t have a stitch on. And yet his activists and his MPs and even some commentators catch a glimpse of a 10-point opinion poll lead and gush, “My, my, isn’t young master Miliband fashionably attired.”

Over the past couple of days the Left has been in ferment at David Cameron and George Osborne’s decision to link welfare to the Philpott killings. But at least Cameron and Osborne are being consistent in their cynicism, and the Philpott case is only being used to drive the presentation of their case on welfare. Ed Miliband’s response to Philpott has been to flip 180 degrees and launch an entirely new policy initiative.

If Ed Miliband wants to shift Labour’s stance on welfare, fine. In my view it’s what’s needed in political and policy terms. If he wants to take a principled stand in defence of welfare, that’s OK too. It will be politically suicidal and could well cost him the next election, but I could at least respect his stance. But Ed Miliband should be displaying the strength of leadership to make his mind up on these issues, not letting Mick Philpott make the decision for him.

This morning Liam Byrne has written “[George Osborne] disgusted me and demeaned the office of chancellor by using the crimes of Mick Philpott to support his attacks on people who claim benefit.” But if he hadn’t done that, Liam, you wouldn’t have written that article, and Ed Miliband wouldn’t have given you the green light to start talking about a new Labour party policy on welfare. It’s George Osborne who is demeaning his office? Really?

Read more by Dan Hodges on Telegraph Blogs
Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter


Tags: Ed Miliband, George Osborne, labour, Labour Party, Liam Byrne, Mick Philpott, welfare























Share





109

















Facebook





0

















Twitter





109