Politics / Current Affairs / Blog thread

Rant and rave at will, that's why you're here, this is the internet after all

Moderators: marowak, Blonde, skhmmxi

User avatar
frank
Site Admin
Posts: 4196
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:47 pm

Post by frank » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:52 am

in the whole child benefits debate, there's a pretty simple general principle that isn't, as far as i can see, being discussed. obviously this is way simplistic and is more of a guiding principle than a policy, but... if you're rich enough to pay tax at all, particularly in the top bracket, you shouldn't be getting any benefits; and if you need to claim benefits then you shouldn't be paying tax. my gut feeling is that people should either be well off and contribute to the welfare state, or in need of help and receive it from the state. trying to put everyone in a grey middle ground, where you give some money and get some back, not only makes things insanely bureaucratic, complicated and expensive, but also seems to be philsophically ridiculous.

on a side note, i find it depressing the bleating of well-to-do fucks at the daily mail and so on about losing this benefit (or as they keep insidiously calling it, "costing" families £x - it's not a cost, it's a loss of a benefit; big difference). personally i take pride in working hard so that i don't have to receive outside help. call me old fashioned. there's a really undignified "take what you can get" attitude across all sections of society which completely undermines what a welfare state should be about - helping those in need, as and when they need it. gah.
Shows? All of em.

"He's like an Uncle, I like him but I don't want to listen to him all day."

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:12 am

frank wrote:in the whole child benefits debate, there's a pretty simple general principle that isn't, as far as i can see, being discussed. obviously this is way simplistic and is more of a guiding principle than a policy, but... if you're rich enough to pay tax at all, particularly in the top bracket, you shouldn't be getting any benefits; and if you need to claim benefits then you shouldn't be paying tax. my gut feeling is that people should either be well off and contribute to the welfare state, or in need of help and receive it from the state. trying to put everyone in a grey middle ground, where you give some money and get some back, not only makes things insanely bureaucratic, complicated and expensive, but also seems to be philsophically ridiculous.

on a side note, i find it depressing the bleating of well-to-do fucks at the daily mail and so on about losing this benefit (or as they keep insidiously calling it, "costing" families £x - it's not a cost, it's a loss of a benefit; big difference). personally i take pride in working hard so that i don't have to receive outside help. call me old fashioned. there's a really undignified "take what you can get" attitude across all sections of society which completely undermines what a welfare state should be about - helping those in need, as and when they need it. gah.
That's the whole Labour Welfare State buy in principle - you've got to give it back to the middle classes to make them buy into it. If they don't get anything they realise that a lot of it is just a fallacy and Labour lose any middle ground they have.

I just think that the tax system should be simpler and fairer. Why are we taking money off anyone to give it back? Lower the tax rate if we have the spare cash then you save the money of having to pay beaurocrats to then dish it back out in small bits.

Anyhow, that's the sideshow, the cap on all benefits is the real deal as far as I'm concerned. See Jeremy Hunt:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... laims.html

''The number of children that you have is a choice and what we're saying is that if people are living on benefits, then they make choices but they also have to have responsibility for those choices''

The fact that this is in someway considered controversial / revolutionary shows just how bad a state we are.

User avatar
Tomasz
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:05 am

Post by Tomasz » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:13 am

The press are spoiling to get stuck into Cameron so they've blown the whole child tax thing way out of all proportion. Why should rich people get a massive tax cut (in effect) because they've had kids? Does that make them somehow more worthy than those of us who haven't chosen to breed? More worthy than poor people without kids? I really hate agreeing with the tories but recently I've been doing it a fair bit :\
Pete wrote:Sometimes, I wish I was a dog on a swing.

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:15 am

Tomasz wrote:The press are spoiling to get stuck into Cameron so they've blown the whole child tax thing way out of all proportion. Why should rich people get a massive tax cut (in effect) because they've had kids? Does that make them somehow more worthy than those of us who haven't chosen to breed? More worthy than poor people without kids? I really hate agreeing with the tories but recently I've been doing it a fair bit :\
It's also a lot to do with the fact those who write these articles are those who will get hit.

From Guido:

YouGov asked people the following question: “In principle, do you support or oppose limiting child benefit so that people with high incomes do not receive it?” 83% supported the principle.

Also from Guido, well done the BBC for cementing their reputation as unbiased serious bastions of news. Cunts.

Image

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:21 am

AND now i've got started, from the Hutton Report (Hutton being a Labour MP who the Tories have asked to do the pension commission. With Frank Field, another Labour MP, being involved in the poverty commission. But the Tories are ideologically obsessed and not in any way pragmatic):
Many public sector workers argue that they have accepted lower pay than they could get in the private sector in order to benefit from better pension provision.

But, in his report, Lord Hutton rejected this: "There is no evidence that pay is lower for public sector workers to reflect higher levels of pension provision," he said.


So, same pay as private sector with job security and a million other additional 'rights' etc, yet essentially unwilling to take any cuts whatsoever. Yep, the left is all about fairness and equality

User avatar
Bigby
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:59 pm

Post by Bigby » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:44 am

Pete wrote: So, same pay as private sector with job security and a million other additional 'rights' etc, yet essentially unwilling to take any cuts whatsoever. Yep, the left is all about fairness and equality
Don't see what this has to do with the left, no matter what field you work in, no one is really going to argue that they deserve a pay cut. Doesn't mean the government has to listen to them, but ofcourse they're going to argue to keep their pay up - just like any worker would. Lots of people who work in the public sector vote conservative, and these people aren't handing their pay packets back without kicking up a fuss either.

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:52 am

Bigby wrote:
Pete wrote: So, same pay as private sector with job security and a million other additional 'rights' etc, yet essentially unwilling to take any cuts whatsoever. Yep, the left is all about fairness and equality
Don't see what this has to do with the left, no matter what field you work in, no one is really going to argue that they deserve a pay cut. Doesn't mean the government has to listen to them, but ofcourse they're going to argue to keep their pay up - just like any worker would. Lots of people who work in the public sector vote conservative, and these people aren't handing their pay packets back without kicking up a fuss either.
It has a lot to do with the left. The Labour Party (who I would deem to represent the 'left' grouping in this country) now have someone put there by the trade unions of this country as their leader. The person the Labour members and their MPs voted for was beaten by the candidate the trade unions supported. It is the trade unions that lead the strikes already seen and those threatened over the coming months and by proxy the Labour Party now support them, no matter what they say.

No one will argue they deserve a pay cut, but those at the mercy of market forces get one regardless. Those proposing strike action, etc somehow think they have the right to be exempt

User avatar
Bigby
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:59 pm

Post by Bigby » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:50 am

Pete wrote:
Bigby wrote:
Pete wrote: So, same pay as private sector with job security and a million other additional 'rights' etc, yet essentially unwilling to take any cuts whatsoever. Yep, the left is all about fairness and equality
Don't see what this has to do with the left, no matter what field you work in, no one is really going to argue that they deserve a pay cut. Doesn't mean the government has to listen to them, but ofcourse they're going to argue to keep their pay up - just like any worker would. Lots of people who work in the public sector vote conservative, and these people aren't handing their pay packets back without kicking up a fuss either.
It has a lot to do with the left. The Labour Party (who I would deem to represent the 'left' grouping in this country) now have someone put there by the trade unions of this country as their leader. The person the Labour members and their MPs voted for was beaten by the candidate the trade unions supported. It is the trade unions that lead the strikes already seen and those threatened over the coming months and by proxy the Labour Party now support them, no matter what they say.
I would be very surprised if Ed came out in support of the strikes, I think it's much more likely that, if tthere are strikes, he'll come out pretty strongly against them. Because of the dubious way he won he is already being branded as a "union man" - if he comes out if favour of strikes then he is finished in mainstream politics. If anything I think he'll try to prove that he isn't a union man.

If David had won I actually think it'd be more likely that he'd have to listen to the unions more, because he'd be worrying about keeping a big base of support onside.

And Ed wasn't selected by the unions because they thought they could control him, he was chosen because he wasn't David. The union leaders said in an interview last week that they wanted Balls but Ed was the only one with a chance of beating David. Ed's in power because the unions hate Blair, not because he has particularly strong union ties.

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:55 am

He comes out strongly against the Unions then Labour's only substantial funding is gone and they are bankrupt and out of politics. The only way Labour fought the last election was through Union money, so if they turn their noses up at them now they're royally fucked.

Did you see the faces of Union bosses at the Labour conference when he was tepidly suggesting strikes might not be the answer? They looked like they'd just sucked shit out of a fat hooker's ass. They do expect him to support them and he will. Feel free to quote me in 6 months to a year when cuts are kicking in and strikes start en masse if Ed comes out strongly against them

User avatar
Bigby
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:59 pm

Post by Bigby » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:25 pm

Pete wrote:He comes out strongly against the Unions then Labour's only substantial funding is gone and they are bankrupt and out of politics. The only way Labour fought the last election was through Union money, so if they turn their noses up at them now they're royally fucked.

Did you see the faces of Union bosses at the Labour conference when he was tepidly suggesting strikes might not be the answer? They looked like they'd just sucked shit out of a fat hooker's ass. They do expect him to support them and he will. Feel free to quote me in 6 months to a year when cuts are kicking in and strikes start en masse if Ed comes out strongly against them
I guess either course of action is risky, he has to choose between pissing off his financial support of pissing off the general electorate. My guess would be that as a new leader of a party he'll be much more worried about public support, and he'll hope that in the 3 years or so until the next election he can get the unions back on side.

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:27 pm

Bigby wrote:
Pete wrote:He comes out strongly against the Unions then Labour's only substantial funding is gone and they are bankrupt and out of politics. The only way Labour fought the last election was through Union money, so if they turn their noses up at them now they're royally fucked.

Did you see the faces of Union bosses at the Labour conference when he was tepidly suggesting strikes might not be the answer? They looked like they'd just sucked shit out of a fat hooker's ass. They do expect him to support them and he will. Feel free to quote me in 6 months to a year when cuts are kicking in and strikes start en masse if Ed comes out strongly against them
I guess either course of action is risky, he has to choose between pissing off his financial support of pissing off the general electorate. My guess would be that as a new leader of a party he'll be much more worried about public support, and he'll hope that in the 3 years or so until the next election he can get the unions back on side.
Why not back the unions and hope the electorate forget in 3 years? If there's one thing the Unions are good at, it's remembering bygone times, unlike our general public who are fickle as fuck.

PS - bring it, George ;)

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:21 am

Nice to see the 'Labour Lurch to the Left' taking further shape. They've got rid of all the pooftas and blacks from senior positions. Next will be British Jobs for British People slogan rolled back out and a possible honorary position for Nick Griffin I'd guess.

User avatar
longlivethefrank
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Post by longlivethefrank » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:42 am

Excuse me for going back a few posts...
Pete wrote:
frank wrote: Anyhow, that's the sideshow, the cap on all benefits is the real deal as far as I'm concerned. See Jeremy Hunt:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... laims.html

''The number of children that you have is a choice and what we're saying is that if people are living on benefits, then they make choices but they also have to have responsibility for those choices''

The fact that this is in someway considered controversial / revolutionary shows just how bad a state we are.
Totally see your point and to be honest I quite like how the coalition is going. I just have to say though, do you not have some sympathy for the kids who happen to be born into a large family with parents who made poor decisions/mistakes? Is it really fair that they get a more deprived upbringing? I think if they are going to say something like that, they should work on ways to help the kids without putting money into the hands of the parents who don't really deserve it.
Pete wrote:
Image
Nick Robinson is a cunt.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:07 am
Location: where ever i lay my hat thats my home

Post by George » Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:14 am

Pete wrote:
Bigby wrote:
Pete wrote:He comes out strongly against the Unions then Labour's only substantial funding is gone and they are bankrupt and out of politics. The only way Labour fought the last election was through Union money, so if they turn their noses up at them now they're royally fucked.

Did you see the faces of Union bosses at the Labour conference when he was tepidly suggesting strikes might not be the answer? They looked like they'd just sucked shit out of a fat hooker's ass. They do expect him to support them and he will. Feel free to quote me in 6 months to a year when cuts are kicking in and strikes start en masse if Ed comes out strongly against them
I guess either course of action is risky, he has to choose between pissing off his financial support of pissing off the general electorate. My guess would be that as a new leader of a party he'll be much more worried about public support, and he'll hope that in the 3 years or so until the next election he can get the unions back on side.
Why not back the unions and hope the electorate forget in 3 years? If there's one thing the Unions are good at, it's remembering bygone times, unlike our general public who are fickle as fuck.

PS - bring it, George ;)
I don't really see a problem in a cap, especially seeing as i dont really believe, as you seem to, that Britain is awash with multi-millionaire benefit claimants, that woman with the fake tits notwithstanding. A £26,000 cap is hardly going to affect many - but it fits in nicely with the mails 'discovery' of said fake tits woman and other benefit entrepreneurs in convincing middle england of its effectiveness. Bearing in mind you get £20 a week for a kid and £13 for each one after that, to reach the cap you'd need something like 30 kids.

The same goes for the upper limit benefit cuts which are, in theory, fine in my book - rich people dont need benefits. Although there is an interesting aside that an attack on universalism and the return to the ignominy of means testing is an affront to the entire welfare system - the point of which, in many cases, is to placate the middle classes by giving them expendable income and something back from the state. The fear, clearly now long since forgotten today, was that removing universal benefits would lead to the middle classes refusing to pay taxes with the sole purpose of propping up the poor. It seems that this implicit facet is on a collision course with the cuts, something i'm not sure i'm necessarily for or against, although it will be interesting to see the middle class bribe is a historical relic, as im sure Osbourne will be hoping, or not.

I'd say though that these cuts surely are just appetisers and we''ll have to wait till the spending review until we see anything of any real substance.

Clur
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:50 pm

Post by Clur » Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:56 pm

Couldn't agree more with some of the sentiments regarding benefits and need verses benefit and supporting a certain lifestyle. And comments about how people make choices without wanting to take full responsibility for them - instead wanting others to pick up the bill for it.

As for student fees...
... I think huge fees are a bad thing. However I think instead of scaremongering and making this a hugely negative thing, there could and should be good side effect to it. I personally don't think the route this country has taken trying to send 50% of people to Uni is in any way right. Its pointless and meaningless and not providing the graduates that businesses and the public sector actually want at the end of it.

And I've lost count of the number of people who I know who graduated who feel their prospects at the end are no better than they would have been and are thoroughly depressed at realising that the dreams they were sold of better job are pretty much bull shit. Education simply has no relationship with the real world - THATS the problem. Not the fees. How many businesses still have to train people when they leave university?

The solution ends up with far more cooperation between universities and business to produce an education that actually has a career tied to it and actually gives graduates the skills that they need. Business sponsored degrees make so much more sense - much more than saddling students with the loans. Why this isn't being pushed more as an idea is beyond me.

And it makes much more sense than the current system that has 10,000 people who study media every year - for an industry that has around 10,000 jobs in total...

Perhaps we should be having a debate as a country on what education should be about for the benefit of the entire country. Why do people need a degree and what does it actually prove to an employer and add to society? I do believe there's room for encouraging culture, research, sport and arts as well as the more social side of living away from home within the framework of making degrees more beneficial and reflective of the real workplace out there wants. Universities as institutions are simply out of touch.

Unfortunately if you are aged 14 - 16, your probably fucked though

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests