|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 29, 2015 9:19:16 GMT
|
|
elic
Member's not posted much yet
;-)
Posts: 28
|
Post by elic on Jun 30, 2015 0:20:20 GMT
Irrelevant of ones opinion of the Conservatives/labour policies, FPTP may not be the most democratic system has served this country well. We have always had a stable Government. This has allowed us to become a relatively wealthy country with influence on the world stage.
Compare this to Italy who have had 42 Prime Ministers in that time.
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Jun 30, 2015 1:59:12 GMT
Irrelevant of ones opinion of the Conservatives/labour policies, FPTP may not be the most democratic system has served this country well. We have always had a stable Government. This has allowed us to become a relatively wealthy country with influence on the world stage. Compare this to Italy who have had 42 Prime Ministers in that time. And Germany? What servED us well doesn't mean serves us well today. We no longer have a 2 party system. So FPTP no longer works.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 30, 2015 12:29:32 GMT
Irrelevant of ones opinion of the Conservatives/labour policies, FPTP may not be the most democratic system has served this country well. elic, did you mean: Irrelevant of ones opinion of the Conservatives/labour policies, FPTP may not be the most democratic system but it has served this country well. Irrelevant of ones opinion of the Conservatives/labour policies, FPTP may not be the most democratic system has served this country well. We have always had a stable Government. This has allowed us to become a relatively wealthy country with influence on the world stage. Compare this to Italy who have had 42 Prime Ministers in that time. We have not always had a stable government. We have had coalition and minority governments that have not been stable in the past. In 1918 we had a coalition government with Liberals and Conservatives until 1922. In 1974 we had a hung parliment which was a minority goverment formed by Labour, which after a no cofidence vote in the house was passed, led to another election that year. In 2010 after anothe huung parliment, a backroom deal was struck between the Liberals and Conservatives, which lead to almost daily headlines of members from both parties annoucing if certain things did or didn't happen, they would call for disbanding the coalition and force another general election. All of which was mostly under the FPTP system. Compare this to Italy who have had 42 Prime Ministers in that time. I can only find this list which shows 12 presidents since 1946, or am I missing something? To clear this up, it's not a choice of EITHER: FPTP or PR. PR is proportional representation and it will make all 650 seats in the house of commons worth the same number of votes. How the winner of each seat is chosen can either stay as FPTP, or STV (Single Transferable Vote) or AV system, although we had a referendum on it and no one wanted it, most likely because we all knew that choosing an alternative made no difference because of the varying sizes in constituencies. PR will resolve this by making it fairer. I saw this article that took the general Election results from 2015 and applied the number of votes to a PR system and the results were a true representation of how the UK actually voted, weather you agree with it or not, it's more acurate than the result we did get. I feel I should also point out that 60% of the UK voter population are for PR. This means that 60% of UK voters are most likely voting tactically, meaning that the PR result is not as close to a genuine result as it can be. In a 2015 election with PR, the 2 largest parties would most likely have been UKIP & The Green Party, with The SNP being the smallest. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Sept 1, 2015 16:00:02 GMT
So this really needs its own thread, but I have bad head fog and kids are bouncing off the walls.... So as its already been discussed here..... It's now being reported UN investigation will go ahead, now the death stats of people who died afyer their bemefits were cut have been released.
|
|
elic
Member's not posted much yet
;-)
Posts: 28
|
Post by elic on Sept 2, 2015 20:14:19 GMT
Part of the blame must be placed at the feet of Governments who implemented unsustainable levels of benefits in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 2, 2015 21:22:06 GMT
So this really needs its own thread, but I have bad head fog and kids are bouncing off the walls.... So as its already been discussed here..... It's now being reported UN investigation will go ahead, now the death stats of people who died afyer their bemefits were cut have been released. blaze, Not sure what you mean needs its own thread, the benefits thing or the European Referendum? The eU Referendum thread is started and is available here. If you mean the Benefits, the death figures that have been released are from the previous governments proposals during the 2005 to 2010 prliment, where Labour gave ATOS the contract for the fit for work assessment, so the Tories are abel to squarely place this blame at LAbour's feet and dodge it themselves. Also, I think there is to be a European Human Rights Court investigation, not a United Nations investigation. elic, Not following what you mean by "the government to blame is the one who implemented unsustainable levels of benefits in the first place" As we are living longer than we werre in the 1940's or 1950's when the welfare system was introduced, it was not forseen that more and more of us would still be collecting a pension beyond 90 to 100 years old and older. The property prices in the South East are also a major contributing factor to the whole DWP budget. in Housing benefit terms, they estimate that of the 35% of the £126 Billion welfare budget that makes up the housing benefit bill, more than 50% of this is for renters in the South East while the other 50% or less is for the rest ofthe entire UK. In Germany they have recently introduced a system of rent control, and it seems to be working to reduce the cost of living for everyone. If we adopted a similar system to align rental rates to match the local housing allowance for each area, we would save 10's of Billions of pounds per year, which could be spent on more housing which could eliminate council housing waiting lists and give everyone a roof over there heads with a fair price that would make this new minimum wage an actual living wage.
|
|
|
Post by contrarymary on Sept 2, 2015 21:31:15 GMT
Wavey75 some errors of fact the figures that have been released are from 2011-2014, ie under the coalition govt and the UN are investigating the UK government about breaking the UN treaty on the rights of people with disabilities. nothing to do with EU CHR it's an interesting subject and likely to run for some time... prob worth starting a new thread with a title that matches - & means we'll be able to find it
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 3, 2015 5:09:38 GMT
Wavey75 the figures that have been released are from 2011-2014, ie under the coalition govt @contrrymary, IDS has already stated that these figures are the result of the infrastructure that was already in place when the coalition took over in 2010. As much as I dislike the cretin, he unfortunately for Labour, has a point. I wasn't sure about the UN investigation, that's good news, but again, it will just bounce of the Tories and onto Gordon Brown's Parliment, where David Cameron will probably hold up that note from the treasury again (surprised he hasn't laminated it by now) to divert the public's attention away yet again. Wavey75
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Sept 3, 2015 6:19:30 GMT
Wavey75 some errors of fact the figures that have been released are from 2011-2014, ie under the coalition govt and the UN are investigating the UK government about breaking the UN treaty on the rights of people with disabilities. nothing to do with EU CHR it's an interesting subject and likely to run for some time... prob worth starting a new thread with a title that matches - & means we'll be able to find it This And the benefits labour put in place became necessary because of Thatcher selling off council housing, artificially inflating the housing market, which had the knock on effect cost of living, and leaving v little affordable housing, meaning a basic standard of living was unattainable by many low earning (but very often hard working) people as well as those unable to work due to certain disabilities.
|
|
|
Post by contrarymary on Sept 3, 2015 8:04:38 GMT
Wavey75 the figures that have been released are from 2011-2014, ie under the coalition govt @contrrymary, IDS has already stated that these figures are the result of the infrastructure that was already in place when the coalition took over in 2010. As much as I dislike the cretin, he unfortunately for Labour, has a point. What IDS says "the figures are as a result of" is not the point; they are the figures for deaths in that period, as released under Freedom of Information Act, as ruled by the Information Commissioner. IDS says a lot of things which turn out not to be true - because of lying, misunderstanding, deliberate misrepresentation - to the press, to parliament, to anyone. a I am not a Labour supporter, and don't think it's unfortunate for them. I think it's "unfortunate" for people who died, their families, all those who are actively suffering because of the actions of this government, the last government, any flaming government, in not adequately meeting thevneeds of people when they are sick. Pls start a new thread and call it something appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 3, 2015 8:47:52 GMT
blaze & contrarymary, Just to clarify, I agree totally that these deaths are the direct result of poor governemnt policies and a serious failiure to support these people in need. I know Labour had to do something to try and make do with what they had after the Thatcher era sold off all the affordable housing, etc. All I was pointing out is that in the media it will play out and end up being a fault of Labours, not this or the last governments'. These deaths should not have occured at all and in my opinion the DWP Minister should resign from embarrassment. His bedroom tax not only didn't save money, it actually cost the tax payer money, on top of what was supposed to be saved. One last thing, that would be the topic of a new thread, as this thread has dealth with a number of issues that each deserve their own thread IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Sept 3, 2015 11:18:49 GMT
blaze & contrarymary, Just to clarify, I agree totally that these deaths are the direct result of poor governemnt policies and a serious failiure to support these people in need. I know Labour had to do something to try and make do with what they had after the Thatcher era sold off all the affordable housing, etc. All I was pointing out is that in the media it will play out and end up being a fault of Labours, not this or the last governments'.[b You didnt point out how the media would represent it at all, you never mentioned the media. You represented it that way. And yes i know it needs its own thread- but was too worn out to start one, and i had already discussed the media leaks of the upcoming UN investigation here so it made it easier to follow on rather than trying to reitate it when my attension wasnt up to it. As i already explained previously. r] These deaths should not have occured at all and in my opinion the DWP Minister should resign from embarrassment. His bedroom tax not only didn't save money, it actually cost the tax payer money, on top of what was supposed to be saved. One last thing, that would be the topic of a new thread, as this thread has dealth with a number of issues that each deserve their own thread IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 4, 2015 12:50:22 GMT
blaze, Hence the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Sept 4, 2015 17:59:21 GMT
Part of the blame must be placed at the feet of Governments who implemented unsustainable levels of benefits in the first place. It's a government and media lie to say that Labour caused unsustainable levels of benefits / unsustainable debt. Below are the government's own figures and a clip of Osbourne forced to admit the truth. It's a lie to enforce purely ideological, not economical, cuts to public services. And it's a lie to cover up and divert from the fact that the majority of us, most specifically and harshly the poorest, are paying for the private business errors of private bankers, owning and working for private banks, and servicing the needs of the wealthiest private individuals in the country, continent and world. You are fed those lies by those wealthiest people in whose interests it is to have you blame the man in a wheelchair, the single mum on benefits, the polish family up the road, the old person needing home help or the refugee on the beach, rather than look up to where the actual issue lies. Labour did not leave us with unsustainable benefits, nor were they responsible for the country's debt. Debt or spending can be best appreciated when looked at against ability to pay. If Richard Branson owes £500 it means nothing, if I owe £500 on minimum wage, it's a big deal. It's the same with countries, America's welfare bill would cripple the UK, as would its debt; but its economy is 7 times bigger than ours, so the only way you can appreciate the numbers is against the ability to pay. This ability to pay is the GDP. It's like the country's income, more accurately like the profit of a company, it's the measure used for countries' finances. Welfare spending under Labour: these are the government's own figures from 1980 to date (those in red are projected). They show that Welfare spending didn't get out of control, nor was it unsustainable and, in fact, finished lower than it was when inherited in 1997. UK welfare spending to GDP from 1980Debt under Labour: again, the government's own figures since 1980. This shows that Labour didn't run us up huge debts - by profligate welfare spending or otherwise. UK debt to GDP from 1980- even having bailed out the banks, the debt to GDP was lower than it was 4 years into Thatcher's reign. Look at this clip of Osbourne being questioned - at 2 mins 15 he is forced to acknowledge that Labour left the UK with a lower debt than USA, Germany, France, Italy and Japan. And finally, debt to GDP is around 80%. After WW2 the UK debt to GDP was 240%, and yet we managed to found the welfare state and the NHS. This country's problems are nothing to do with the previous Labour government, they're all to do with the wealthiest elite and their self-serving neoliberal politics.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Sept 5, 2015 19:04:47 GMT
Macro economics is very different from managing a house hold's finances- something that's conviently avoided in media articles about the current debt.
In times of depression rich save but poorer family's continue to spend (because £10 in the bank doesn't mean much but giving the kids the odd treat/new school uuniform/presents at Xmas or just making life easier with the odd take away or new hair cut does mean a lot to most people's well being) so cutting benefits (including in work ones) means less money going into the economy, and less economic growth, so less likely hood of permenant work contracts and company's paying decent wages so less chance people can work their way out of poverty and off of benefits.
And taking this money and using it to give the rich more- means its not used to pay off the debt (torys conviently forgot to tell everyone this) and its not put backin the economy- which means double dip recession.
|
|
elic
Member's not posted much yet
;-)
Posts: 28
|
Post by elic on Sept 5, 2015 22:27:08 GMT
The Labour Government put systems in place where for every pound I work I lose almost as much in benefits. This is bad for the country. A responsible government rewards hardwork - not penalise it.
I personally will be far worse off financially under the new system. However I appreciate that it was ridiculous to rely of hundreds of pounds worth of benefits a month until now! The Conservatives are putting benefits back to a sensible level.
We must remember that NO-ONE is entitled to benefits. We are only ENTITILED to be paid for work we do.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Sept 6, 2015 6:11:38 GMT
The Labour Government put systems in place where for every pound I work I lose almost as much in benefits. This @is bad for the country. A responsible government rewards hardwork - not penalise it. I personally will be far worse off financially under the new system. However I appreciate that it was ridiculous to rely of hundreds of pounds worth of benefits a month until now! The Conservatives are putting benefits back to a sensible level. We must remember that NO-ONE is entitled to benefits. We are only ENTITILED to be paid for work we do. People who have disabilities that prevent them from working or working more than a few hours absolutely are entitled to benefits (that provide a reasonable quality of life at the very least). Or peoplewho are forced to give up careers to be full time carers to children/relatives with ddisabilities. For plenty with small children working simply doesn't pay even with tax credits so for single parents with no help they may end up depriving their children if they worked- and the vast majority most definitely don't choose to be single parents. And anyone working deserves a living wage-and as companies don't pay it top ups and hb become necessary for many (and we need nmw workers like nursery staff, carers and hospital porters who do valuable jobs) Many of these examples will be people who use this forum. You must bear in mind that when you make absolute claims like no one is entitled to benefits you will risk seriously offending people here who are already struggling and come for support not more abuse. This has been a good thread, please don't ruin it by hurting many people who may already be vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by contrarymary on Sept 6, 2015 9:02:13 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 12:31:44 GMT
ADMIN COMMENT
This is a political debate.
It will remain a political debate.
Anyone can express their opinion as long as it remains within the site rules.
The only posts that risk any censure whatsoever are those that stifle debate.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Sept 7, 2015 6:29:35 GMT
This was started as one posters upset over the election result, and several other posted similar upset. It would be crass to disregard that.
Even within debates certain comments are unacceptable, homophobic, sexist, racist remarks and obviously disablist ones- within the context used claiming no one is entitled to benefits can come across that way, hense the reason I asked the poster to bear in mind the valid reasons people have to claim who may read or post on this thread. That's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 7, 2015 8:26:52 GMT
There I was writing a reply, then I noticed I got 4 stars! (now doing a little dance in my underpants!) Level up! Me? distracted easily? nope, not me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 8:41:00 GMT
(now doing a little dance in my underpants!) That's TMI, my lovely.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Sept 7, 2015 8:56:27 GMT
@pelargonium,
Yeah well, it was a bit of a lie ... I can't dance lol.
|
|
elic
Member's not posted much yet
;-)
Posts: 28
|
Post by elic on Sept 7, 2015 8:59:39 GMT
This has been a good thread, please don't ruin it by hurting many people who may already be vulnerable.
Blaze. Point taken - it was a bit harsh.
|
|
elic
Member's not posted much yet
;-)
Posts: 28
|
Post by elic on Sept 7, 2015 9:01:13 GMT
Food for thought.
If all of humanity looked at their responsibilities rather than their rights, the world would be a much beter place.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Sept 7, 2015 12:38:40 GMT
Thanks. And I'd agree with your point about responsibility. But its far too simple. It is always really important that we take responsibility for ourselves, but thats something that most people are much more able to do when supported. Then there's also 'our' responsibility to those who are vulnerable- and part of that is benefits. There's also the government's responsibility to ensure people are able to access a reasonable standard of living- affordable housing, employment that pays enough to live on.
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Sept 21, 2015 2:20:22 GMT
The Labour Government put systems in place where for every pound I work I lose almost as much in benefits. The conservatives have increased the amount lost by 7p in the £. Under Labour the taper was 41p, under the Tories it's gone up to 48p. There have been a number of questions in parliament asking how this helps to incentivise people, none of which have been answered properly of course, This is bad for the country. What is bad for the country is huge and increasing inequality. Slashing vital support to those most in need while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest is redistributing money from the poor to the rich and increasing inequality. The UK is the 4th most unequal OECD country. There's a wealth of research and evidence across the world about the effects of inequality. (See IMF, OECD, United Nations, World Health Organisation, European Commission and so on, ad nauseum. Without exception, rising inequality is positively correlated with increased crime rate, worse physical health, worse mental health, poorer educational outcomes, poorer life outcomes, lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, and lower GDP - to name but a fraction. It's also associated with communities breaking down, people being less trustful, a rise in bigotry, race / targeted group hatred and violence. The list is almost endless. There is nothing about huge inequality that's good for a country - not for its social wellbeing, or its finances. A responsible government rewards hardwork - not penalise it. This government doesn't reward hard work! If it did then the recent budget would have helped working families. I work full time - and hard - yet my family will be £1,502 worse off as a result of the budget. The IFS has just published a full analysis of the effects of the budget - and as you can see, the only group to benefit is the 9/10 richest decile group. The group losing the most is the 2nd lowest decile group (second tenth poorest) - this is my group, I work my arse off and bring my children up properly, as I'm sure do 99.99999% in my group, same as most people. The poverty porn you see on Channel 5 in and the Daily Fail isn't indicative of real life, just like porn porn isn't. Families claiming tax credits are just families, regular families, regular "hard-working" families, people of this country who should be able to live from day to day. In order then, losing the most are 2nd poorest, 3rd, joint 4th and poorest 1/10th, 5th, 6th, 7th - so, in fact, the poorest losing the most. This is nothing to do with hard work, this is to do with penalising the poor at the expense of the wealthy; it's about ideological policies that specifically redistribute wealth upwards. If hard work paid then there would be full social mobility - you'd just have to work hard to get on. But social mobility is low and falling - the single biggest factor in determining a child's life outcome is what its parents earn. That's not right, think of all the lost potential on kids being trapped in a poverty cycle because the country they live in doesn't redistribute wealth to mitigate their disadvantage. Every statistic shows that lack of social mobility is bad for the economy as well as the person. In 2014, the richest 100 people in this country increased their wealth by £40bn. Just between 100 of them. That's the tax and income distribution system we have. In context, that would pay for over a third of the NHS. They didn't earn all that money by working harder than me, their huge increase in wealth, while food banks gave out enough to feed more than 1 million people in the same year, is a direct result of government policy that is taking money from the poor and putting it into the pockets of the rich. In 2014, the coalition spent £1.1bn on house building. Yet the Boots the Chemist avoided £1.21bn in tax, Vodafone £12bn, Amazon, Google, Starbucks and so on. The government employs 3000 people to investigate benefit fraud, yet 300 at Hmrc to investigate tax evasion. This is government policy that is targeting the poor, while the rich are allowed to evade / avoid as much as they want. In the recent budget they increased the inheritance tax threshold. The Treasury's own documents acknowledged this will mainly benefit the richest 1/5th of people. This cost £1bn. The tax credits cut saved £4bn and affected the poorest people, so 1/4 of that hardship inflicted was used to give the already richest 1/5th a further tax break. Or that tax break for the richest 1/5 could have been used to double the budget for badly needed housing. This is not rewarding hard work, this is rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor. I personally will be far worse off financially under the new system. However I appreciate that it was ridiculous to rely of hundreds of pounds worth of benefits a month until now! The Conservatives are putting benefits back to a sensible level. Why is it ridiculous to rely on benefits? If you're at a stage in your life where you need some help to live, then why is that ridiculous to expect that there is social security that will help you when in need? Why is that not sensible? What's a sensible amount of benefits? It can't be as it is now when this country is being investigated by the United Nations for " Systemic and grave violations of disabled people's human rights" as a result of the welfare reforms. This is unprecedented, we are the first country to be investigated for this - that's shameful. We must remember that NO-ONE is entitled to benefits. We are only ENTITILED to be paid for work we do. You say that no one is entitled to benefits? Why not? We live in the 6th richest country in the world. There is more than enough money to go round, why should those in hard times not be entitled to benefits. The government has just given £60m to build a bridge with a garden on it over the Thames! Why should you not have an adequate safety net at a time in your life when you need it? If you google any of the disability rights pages, you'll see heartbreaking stories of people denied benefits - why aren't they entitled? What would you do if you were knocked down by a bus tomorrow and paralysed from the neck down? Would you think you were entitled? I think you would be. But it's not only the disabled. My kids have a mum who works full time but is on a low income. Why shouldn't they expect to not unduly suffer because of that? It's not their fault - it's not mine either. They live in the 6th richest country in the world, they are entitled to be helped. By investing in children, you're investing in the country's future. If someone loses their job, why shouldn't they be entitled to help while they find another? I don't see this logic. If all of humanity looked at their responsibilities rather than their rights, the world would be a much beter place. You're right about humanity looking at its responsibilities - that is the most important thing. And there's nothing humane about people in the United Kingdom dying because of lack of food due to benefit sanctions while we pay £7m to subsidise the House of Commons and House of Lords dining costs, or while 100 people increase their wealth by £40bn, or while businesses were given a £6.6bn cut in corporation tax. It's totally in humane. But they will carry on all the while the masses are believing their propaganda - don't you see that they're laughing and you and me and everyone. And every time someone who's poor says it's right that they should stay that way, (or as I've seen elsewhere that it's a refugee's fault or a disabled person's fault), they're rubbing their hands because it means they've got a carte blanche to carry on. The people giving us the information are those for whom this sick state of affairs is beneficial. The poverty porn / Channel 5 is owned by Richard Desmond, multi billionaire, non domicile; Daily Fail, Lord Rothermere, multi billionaire, non Dom; Sun / Times / Fox News / everything - Murdoch - in top 100 richest people on the planet, non Dom; Conservative cabinet - combined wealth £70m in 2012 - I could go on and on. None of these cuts affect them negatively, on the contrary, they all make them loads richer. They're not interested in telling us the truth, why would they empower you with information which might make us question the status quo, which might then make us stand up for ourselves? Why would they do that when that might mean they lose some of their wealth and power? They lie and manipulate the truth to make you think that it's all fair and good. But it's not and everyone needs to inform themselves before things deteriorate further and all humanity disappears. I fear for my children's futures, I fear for my own, I despair at the hatred I see on FB and I despair at the propaganda and misinformation that's bilged out by the hour which is misdirecting normal people so they look around them instead of upwards to see where the real problems come from.
|
|
|
Post by manson88 on Sept 21, 2015 6:22:34 GMT
JJ I love your words, you describe a difficult situation. Well done your analysis is spot on. I actually read it a number of times but that is just me. I'm like a lot of people , I'm majorly affected by their actions. You know my circumstances at the moment. I can't get DLA, I can't get anymore text credits cause I don't work enough hours! Yes awarding people who work! It's really tuff then they are saying that they are over prescribing antidepressants!! Cause and effect?? It angers me the big companies like of Google and star bucks are running tax free. But I sure that if yours or mine circumstances changed they would be there with there hand out!! - you didn't tell us is what they would say! Modern day life is so difficult really is. Manson88
|
|
|
Post by contrarymary on Sept 21, 2015 6:47:36 GMT
|
|