Something For Nothing!

[mikeyjh]

This is the exact result Cameron wanted. Please do watch, it sums this effect up perfectly and it's about a minute long. And it's got Ron Swanson in it. What more could you want?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSAC_44NOCg

Brilliant

 

[Nibble]

Brilliant

Great innit.

 

[drew]

What a load of cliches.

Most Conservative supporters are poor, just like Labour ones. Only a fraction of Conservatives are rich, just like Labour ones. And, there are just as many rich Labour politicians as there are rich Conservative ones. Labour doesn't care about the poor any more than the Conservatives do, or any less.

The only differences between them are their ideologies. The Conservatives believe people are responsible for themselves. Labour believes the Government is responsible for the people, hence the bloated benefits system and the extra tax voters have to pay to finance it.

I feel that a labour definition of poor is poorer than a conservative one!!!

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

So how would you suggest dealing with long term unemployed people who have no intention of working, even though there is nothing preventing them doing so?. Or do you think they should just get money for nothing, as the song goes....This does not go for people who are unable to work, that is a different thing altogether.....Of course the large part of the problem is the ten's if not hundred's of thousand illegals over here working for pennies. But then you have to look at who opened the flood gates in the first place and how we are going to get them out?

I'd start by not offering people who can afford a 600k house, or second home a £120,000 interest free loan to let them increase their property portfolio...why not use that money instead to incentivise the long term unemployed via proper work programmes to see themselves as part of society rather than totally outside it? More free money for the middle class is not why I pay my taxes.

 

[kevtherev]

Now Cameron is suggesting that under 25's should not get any benefits at all....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24369514

Shocking stuff from the tories, that party really is absolute scum that only really considers the wellbeing of the rich.

I thought he actually said, he wants everybody under the age of 25 either earning or learning What's wrong with that statement

 

[kevtherev]

The high street is becoming increasingly desolate, pubs are closing on a daily basis - retail and bar-tending are traditionally young peoples' first jobs and they are becoming more elusive, not to mention the fact they are now competing with older people who have to resort to that kind of employment... nothing would be wrong with that statement if all young people could magically find a job, but we even have young lads asking on NSC for jobs, they are finding it so difficult....

So is it really fair to strip the benefits of the young people who can't find work? Not all young people have wealthy parents who can support them while job hunting...

Every year I have a lad help me for a two week period, over the last 10 years(10 lads) there is only 2 of them, I would even entertain giving a job too. The other 8 were brain dead and couldn't even follow basic instructions and ended up making my life more difficult.....and most of them were going onto university or college of some sort or other...If they need to stay in education until 25 until they grasp the concept of what work is, so be it..Or get a job and contribute to society...All Cameron was saying was leaving school and choosing to go straight on benefits should not be an option, how can anyone disagree with this

 

[Dave the OAP]

Now Cameron is suggesting that under 25's should not get any benefits at all....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24369514

Shocking stuff from the tories, that party really is absolute scum that only really considers the wellbeing of the rich.

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you? Under 25?

 

[Justice]

At the end of the day, I can't see this working in a million years, simply because people won't do it and we won't allow people to starve as others have stated. The way forward is to give people vouchers for there everyday needs. They will soon go out and find work when they can't spend them on fags, booze and scratchcards.......

Benefits spent this way end up straight back in the governments coffers via high levy of taxes on these products, out on one hand straight back in the other.

 

[jgmcdee]

The only differences between them are their ideologies. The Conservatives believe people are responsible for themselves. Labour believes the Government is responsible for the people, hence the bloated benefits system and the extra tax voters have to pay to finance it.

Way, way out. Lazy tabloid-fed junk.

Take a look at this graph. It shows debt as % of GDP since labour came to power in 1997. Up until 2008 when the global financial crisis kicked off labour kept debt levels down below that of the previous tory government. And for all of the talk from the current government about reigning in debt they've increased debt from ~50% to ~70% of GDP whilst in power and their projections suggest that it'll keep going up for the foreseeable future.

 

[HovaGirl]

I feel that a labour definition of poor is poorer than a conservative one!!!

No, that's just Labour propaganda to make you think only they care about the poor. They want you to vote for them, which, in Milliband's case, means to vote for the Unions. Most people, rich or poor, do not belong to a Trades Union.

 

[HovaGirl]

Way, way out. Lazy tabloid-fed junk.

Take a look at this graph. It shows debt as % of GDP since labour came to power in 1997. Up until 2008 when the global financial crisis kicked off labour kept debt levels down below that of the previous tory government. And for all of the talk from the current government about reigning in debt they've increased debt from ~50% to ~70% of GDP whilst in power and their projections suggest that it'll keep going up for the foreseeable future.

No, not tabloid-fed junk, but degree-level study of politics in a former life.

As to this particular graph, it shows that, since they came to power, the national debt has increased under the Coalition more than it did under Labour, but this chart alone does not tell the whole story. Labour inherited a very healthy economy from John Major's Conservative Government, which kept the Labour Government buoyant, as long as the growth in GDP continued. To help it along, Brown sold much of the national gold reserves (which back up our money supply) at a very low price, which helped to keep national borrowing down. However, the public sector grew under Labour, as did the number of people on benefits, which means that the bill for public sector spending rose during their administration, from 36% of GDP to 46% of GDP by 2008/9. The recession began about the same time, and while GDP fell, Labour had to begin public borrowing again to pay its increased bills.

Several years later, the Coalition has tried to cut those bills, and is still trying to cut those bills while GDP is sluggish, because the taxes of the people just isn't enough to pay those bills. The only way to pay them, is to borrow more while still trying to reduce them, but that isn't popular among the people. The only other answer, is for the Government to borrow even more money, which it can't do, because it can't afford to pay it back and will end up like Greece. Our constitution differs from that of the USA, otherwise we might have had to have a Government shutdown, like they have had this week.

 

[Ernest]

They can get jobs supervising the 2.5 million who will be spending 35 hours a week down the job centre

 

[Napper]

Something for nothing unless you are a banker or politician

 

[Guinness Boy]

No, not tabloid-fed junk, but degree-level study of politics in a former life.

As to this particular graph, it shows that, since they came to power, the national debt has increased under the Coalition more than it did under Labour, but this chart alone does not tell the whole story. Labour inherited a very healthy economy from John Major's Conservative Government, which kept the Labour Government buoyant, as long as the growth in GDP continued. To help it along, Brown sold much of the national gold reserves (which back up our money supply) at a very low price, which helped to keep national borrowing down. However, the public sector grew under Labour, as did the number of people on benefits, which means that the bill for public sector spending rose during their administration, from 36% of GDP to 46% of GDP by 2008/9. The recession began about the same time, and while GDP fell, Labour had to begin public borrowing again to pay its increased bills.

Several years later, the Coalition has tried to cut those bills, and is still trying to cut those bills while GDP is sluggish, because the taxes of the people just isn't enough to pay those bills. The only way to pay them, is to borrow more while still trying to reduce them, but that isn't popular among the people. The only other answer, is for the Government to borrow even more money, which it can't do, because it can't afford to pay it back and will end up like Greece. Our constitution differs from that of the USA, otherwise we might have had to have a Government shutdown, like they have had this week.

That means you understand politics and how to quote the statistics and arguments (note nothing to back up your praise of Major) that suit your point of view. That's basically what's wrong with politics here and in much of the world. If a financial regulator or ombudsman was Chancellor, if an ex super head was in charge of education, if an ex senior cop Is running the Home Office then, for me, the country would run a whole lot better.

The sort of partisan argument you're using is EXACTLY why America is at a stand still.

 

[drew]

Every year I have a lad help me for a two week period, over the last 10 years(10 lads) there is only 2 of them, I would even entertain giving a job too. The other 8 were brain dead and couldn't even follow basic instructions and ended up making my life more difficult.....and most of them were going onto university or college of some sort or other...If they need to stay in education until 25 until they grasp the concept of what work is, so be it..Or get a job and contribute to society...All Cameron was saying was leaving school and choosing to go straight on benefits should not be an option, how can anyone disagree with this

You're unbelievable. There are a million 16-25 yr old not in work or training. Why do you believe they all choose to go on benefits. There aren't the jobs, apprenticeships or training schemes for them all. What should they do? As for your 'lads' perhaps you should go on a course for interview technique!!!!

No, not tabloid-fed junk, but degree-level study of politics in a former life.

As to this particular graph, it shows that, since they came to power, the national debt has increased under the Coalition more than it did under Labour, but this chart alone does not tell the whole story. Labour inherited a very healthy economy from John Major's Conservative Government, which kept the Labour Government buoyant, as long as the growth in GDP continued. To help it along, Brown sold much of the national gold reserves (which back up our money supply) at a very low price, which helped to keep national borrowing down. However, the public sector grew under Labour, as did the number of people on benefits, which means that the bill for public sector spending rose during their administration, from 36% of GDP to 46% of GDP by 2008/9. The recession began about the same time, and while GDP fell, Labour had to begin public borrowing again to pay its increased bills.

Several years later, the Coalition has tried to cut those bills, and is still trying to cut those bills while GDP is sluggish, because the taxes of the people just isn't enough to pay those bills. The only way to pay them, is to borrow more while still trying to reduce them, but that isn't popular among the people. The only other answer, is for the Government to borrow even more money, which it can't do, because it can't afford to pay it back and will end up like Greece. Our constitution differs from that of the USA, otherwise we might have had to have a Government shutdown, like they have had this week.

Exactly how does gold in the modern era underpin our money supply? Thought it was more to do with underpinning foreign trade! You also say he sold much of the gold which implies most when in fact it was only half of the stock.

As for your statistics, you neglect to advise that when Labour came into power, the national debt as a percentage of GDP was as high as it was by 2008! In fact, during the 1990s and 00s, upto 2008, National Debt as a percentage was between 35 and 40% roughly equally under both labour and the Tory administrations. It only increased to the levels you refer to once the recession had hit and measures taken. I'm no fan of Brown and whilst the sale of gold was not handled brilliantly, neither were the events surrounding Black Monday which fell during Major's watch and which at the time cost the British tax payer an estimated £3b. Brown's sale of gold between 1999 and 2002 was estimated to, by 2007, have cost only £2b. Of course then the recession hit and the price of gold went through the roof.

 

[El Presidente]

No, not tabloid-fed junk, but degree-level study of politics in a former life.

I presume you majored in spin?

 

[jgmcdee]

To help it along, Brown sold much of the national gold reserves (which back up our money supply) at a very low price, which helped to keep national borrowing down.

And another oft-quoted piece of garbage. The gold was sold at market price, which yes was lower than it is now. But even if he'd kept hold of it and sold it all at the height of its value then the difference in funds would have been around £7bn, which given that the debt is around £1.2tn is a rounding error.

However, the public sector grew under Labour, as did the number of people on benefits, which means that the bill for public sector spending rose during their administration, from 36% of GDP to 46% of GDP by 2008/9

And yet another one, directly equating public sector spending with benefits. Going back to the numbers let's look at where that increase in GDP went to. 80% rise in spending on housing and local amenities, 50% rise in spending on transport, 45% rise in spending on health, 30% rise in spending on education and... 6% rise in spending on welfare (all as % of GDP).

I'm sure arguments like this can go back and forth, but quite honestly I'm not so bothered by the politics of one side versus the other as much as the continual misrepresentation of facts to suit political viewpoints. It *really* irritates me.

 

[HovaGirl]

I presume you majored in spin?

No, Labour does that.

 

[HovaGirl]

And another oft-quoted piece of garbage. The gold was sold at market price, which yes was lower than it is now. But even if he'd kept hold of it and sold it all at the height of its value then the difference in funds would have been around £7bn, which given that the debt is around £1.2tn is a rounding error.



And yet another one, directly equating public sector spending with benefits. Going back to the numbers let's look at where that increase in GDP went to. 80% rise in spending on housing and local amenities, 50% rise in spending on transport, 45% rise in spending on health, 30% rise in spending on education and... 6% rise in spending on welfare (all as % of GDP).

I'm sure arguments like this can go back and forth, but quite honestly I'm not so bothered by the politics of one side versus the other as much as the continual misrepresentation of facts to suit political viewpoints. It *really* irritates me.

Me too.

 

[El Presidente]

No, Labour does that.

That's the type of blind dogma that makes me despair. BOTH parties are full of hypocritical, manipulative, self serving liars, cheats and bullies.

There are idiots on the left (Prescott, Heffer) and the right (Tebbitt, Gove). None are deserving of public office but no one of greater intellect or ability wants the job.