Our leaders: Out for thenmselves or trying to get the country back on track?

[Nibble]

With news of our "leaders"' austerity measures, ideas to alter housing benefit, chasing after Jimmy Carr and now news the queen is getting a pay rise to something like 36 million what do you think. Personally I think they are scum. You?

 

[DTES]

Bit of both. I think they genuinely believe that they are doing the best for the country, because they have convinced themselves (intentionally or otherwise) that taking benefits from the unemployed and letting the rich (including their mates) get away with paying no tax is the best thing for the country.

You & I obviously disagree, but what difference does that make?

 

[somerset]

Bit of both. I think they genuinely believe that they are doing the best for the country, because they have convinced themselves (intentionally or otherwise) that taking benefits from the unemployed and letting the rich (including their mates) get away with paying no tax is the best thing for the country.

You & I obviously disagree, but what difference does that make?

But but but..... didn't they only recently announce a big drive to sort out the tax avoidance brigade.....?

 

[DTES]

Their main goal at the moment is to balance the books while keeping the majority of us satisfied enough to vote for them again.

You're not wrong - but it's even easier in that they don't need anywhere near a majority. The Tories won 36% in 2010 - even in their 1997 landslide, 43% of the vote was enough to get Labour a massive 'majority' in the House.

 

[Albumen]

Out for themselves. Full stop. Vile individuals. I'll stop before I damage my keyboard.

 

[GreersElbow]

Same old, same old for every party. There isn't a real alternative out there, anyone who says UKIP IMO are a bit deluded to think they'll be any different to the Tories...because it is made up of ex-tories who are just a little bit more eurosceptic than the Tories.

 

[beorhthelm]

i do believe all leaders do what they think is best for the country while favoring their prefered tribe. often this is flawed and/or misguided, other times it works out better in the long run. too often they dont do enough for the future because they pander to tomorrows headlines and cheap political wrestling.

of the one raised today, altering housing and other benefits, the whole point is to start a debate. its one that often arises here and elsewhere with out proper capturing of the outcome. we havent really discuss the whole welfare system properly for 60 years, just blindly accepted it. its a £110bn budget, more than education and nearly as much as health, and we know alot of people are taking the piss. it needs review.

 

[Common as Mook]

i do believe all leaders do what they think is best for the country while favoring their prefered tribe. often this is flawed and/or misguided, other times it works out better in the long run. too often they dont do enough for the future because they pander to tomorrows headlines and cheap political wrestling.

of the one raised today, altering housing and other benefits, the whole point is to start a debate. its one that often arises here and elsewhere with out proper capturing of the outcome. we havent really discuss the whole welfare system properly for 60 years, just blindly accepted it. its a £110bn budget, more than education and nearly as much as health, and we know alot of people are taking the piss. it needs review.

It took until post 8 for the frothing to stop and to actually have a bit of considered thought to the debate.

 

[catfish]

We are certainly not "all in this together".

 

[itszamora]

We are certainly not "all in this together".

No. Woe betide you if you're young, unemployed or disabled, in particular.

 

[severnside gull]

It worries me that Housing Benefit for under-25's is the current flavour of the month knowing that Cameron, as pretty well everyone else at the Palace of Westminster, will have no conception how it is dispersed.

It is soundbite politics of the worst sort but just like slagging off Jimmy Carr without realising that political friend and ally Gary Barlow would cop some backlash, the politicians have no concern for the detail. It's all broad brush strokes to garner the popular vote.

Of course some money is misspent and there is a kernel of truth and justification in the concerns expressed that we are nurturing a culture where people have a right to benefits. It worries me massively that people under-25 represent the single biggest growth area of unemployed and many have little prospect of getting employment - not because they don't want to work but because there are no jobs for them. I am worried that the longer it takes for them to find (or be found) work the more likely they are to become unemployable. . I'm all for (properly managed) workfare but that of course costs money to establish and to run so it remains cheaper to leave the problem alone. So where do those young people live in the meanwhile? Are we going to make it obligatory for parents to house their offspring to age 25 at least? Will we make mobility and taking low paid work even less attractive because young people cannot fund themselves to live away from home? Will young people with mental health issues and learning disabilities (my area of expertise such as it is) be refused funding to live independantly when there is no institutional support in existence because of funding cuts?

I could go on ad nauseum...........................that's the trouble with soundbite politics and as Cameron should have learned from his many experiences in recent months, it leads to inevitable climb downs and U-turns.

Will it gain him more votes? Maybe but his timing is bad. There is too long between now and the next election for him to be pilloried for crass stupidity or for opposition parties to piggyback his policies with more considered versions which might actually achieve the desirable outcomes without causing further damage to thoose who deserve and need support.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

What we're seeing is a return to the 'core' Conservative policies that they'd LIKE to introduce but know that in reality they can't because the Lib-Dem part of the coalition won't agree to it.

Now 'core' Conservative policies are ;

Low taxation
An emphasis on the individual to make provision for their own welfare ( so private healthcare, pensions etc )
Less state intervention ( be that either at Westminster or European level )
Less regulation
More 'localism' ( NOT to be confused with devolution - that's entirely different )

However some of our current problems actually stem from these policies, and in fact, if the priority is to cut the deficit, then low taxation and less regulation ( at least in the banking sector ) are probably not good policies to follow.

Unfortunately the Conservative policy to sell off Council housing via the 'right-to-buy', has left under 25's entirely reliant on a Private sector rental market, where rents are completely unregulated, and therefore housing benefit becomes a priori for anyone wanting to put a roof over their heads.

 

[Hamilton]

It worries me that Housing Benefit for under-25's is the current flavour of the month knowing that Cameron, as pretty well everyone else at the Palace of Westminster, will have no conception how it is dispersed.

It is soundbite politics of the worst sort but just like slagging off Jimmy Carr without realising that political friend and ally Gary Barlow would cop some backlash, the politicians have no concern for the detail. It's all broad brush strokes to garner the popular vote.

Of course some money is misspent and there is a kernel of truth and justification in the concerns expressed that we are nurturing a culture where people have a right to benefits. It worries me massively that people under-25 represent the single biggest growth area of unemployed and many have little prospect of getting employment - not because they don't want to work but because there are no jobs for them. I am worried that the longer it takes for them to find (or be found) work the more likely they are to become unemployable. . I'm all for (properly managed) workfare but that of course costs money to establish and to run so it remains cheaper to leave the problem alone. So where do those young people live in the meanwhile? Are we going to make it obligatory for parents to house their offspring to age 25 at least? Will we make mobility and taking low paid work even less attractive because young people cannot fund themselves to live away from home? Will young people with mental health issues and learning disabilities (my area of expertise such as it is) be refused funding to live independantly when there is no institutional support in existence because of funding cuts?

I could go on ad nauseum...........................that's the trouble with soundbite politics and as Cameron should have learned from his many experiences in recent months, it leads to inevitable climb downs and U-turns.

Will it gain him more votes? Maybe but his timing is bad. There is too long between now and the next election for him to be pilloried for crass stupidity or for opposition parties to piggyback his policies with more considered versions which might actually achieve the desirable outcomes without causing further damage to thoose who deserve and need support.

This.

For every person you find abusing benefits you'll find 1000s that actually need them.

This is just Tory dogma surfacing in the party. I expect a great deal more as we approach potential elections.

So far this has been a "do nothing" government (or rather a do less than nothing government.) There needs to be more capital investment projects that are going to result in jobs now and jobs for the future. We're starting to see some signs of this in the move back to a third runway for Heathrow. Of course, they'll spend so long debating the details that by the time infrastructure for the future is built the Chinese and Indians will be doing business with the Brazilians and Africa, and Paris will be the European hub as the reliance on London deteriorates.

All this is an aside to the Tories misguided priorities. Stop bashing Europe, stop bashing the poor, stop protecting the banks, start investing in infrastructure and education (and no, not the 3Rs and CSEs Mr Gove, but one strong examining board.)

 

[Danny-Boy]

What we're seeing is a return to the 'core' Conservative policies that they'd LIKE to introduce but know that in reality they can't because the Lib-Dem part of the coalition won't agree to it.

Now 'core' Conservative policies are ;

Low taxation
An emphasis on the individual to make provision for their own welfare ( so private healthcare, pensions etc )
Less state intervention ( be that either at Westminster or European level )
Less regulation
More 'localism' ( NOT to be confused with devolution - that's entirely different )

However some of our current problems actually stem from these policies, and in fact, if the priority is to cut the deficit, then low taxation and less regulation ( at least in the banking sector ) are probably not good policies to follow.

Unfortunately the Conservative policy to sell off Council housing via the 'right-to-buy', has left under 25's entirely reliant on a Private sector rental market, where rents are completely unregulated, and therefore housing benefit becomes a priori for anyone wanting to put a roof over their heads.

Could be they are trying to split the coalition now? There are strong rumours that the next Election would be held in 2013, before the Boundary Commission report is adopted.

Also the Daily Wail seems to be running a campaign to reassure us of the PM's red-blooded heterosexuality, after the "Toff" jibes and rumours about his preference for Ministers from Sussex who are light on their feet. Must be interesting at Cabinet in the toilet breaks..

 

[Danny-Boy]

No. Woe betide you if you're young, unemployed or disabled, in particular.

Well Lord Kinnock and the blessed Glenys certainly ain't suffering now,are they...

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

I've just read that one of Cameron's ideas is to expect sickness benefit claimants to take steps to improve their health - the man has really not got a clue about medicine has he.

If someone is suffering from a long-term chronic condition, then there is pretty much nothing that either medicine or lifestyle changes can do to change it. By definition, the word 'chronic' means it's incurable. You might as well ask someone who has had their arm amputated to ' well, can't you grow it back again? '

 

[Silk]

Tribes. There was once at least balance. The Tories looked after their tribe, Labour looked after theirs. Tony Blair changed all that. Now it's Tory or bust, and most of us are.

 

[glasfryn]

With news of our "leaders"' austerity measures, ideas to alter housing benefit, chasing after Jimmy Carr and now news the queen is getting a pay rise to something like 36 million what do you think. Personally I think they are scum. You?

history repeating itself .........it might just be the thatcher years if you close your eyes