Osborne's Goes After The Guilty

[Olebrum]

What are you expecting - normal people with experinence of working for a living and having to think about paying bills etc?

There's barely a handful from either side of the house that have ever had to actually work for a living.

[EUBanana]

Who will you be relying on to pay tax during your retirement?

Have any of you ‘I don’t want kids / won’t have kids / don’t see why I should pay for others to have kids’ brigade including various Tory press ever thought that in order to pay for future retirement and in order to fund future spending we might actually need a bunch of people to WORK AND PAY TAXES? And seeing as you will need these people to work in the future in order for you to sit back and relax in retirement, if you cannot be arsed with putting in the effort to have your own children or do not see it as something you would like to do / cannot do it might actually be worth investing a bit of money in encouraging other people to create the workforce of the future?

Or do you want us to continue with encouraging mass immigration of working age people into the country?

Which is it to be? Import immigrants or encourage an increase in the birth rate in order to fund our future? You choose.

PS: I am not suggesting that the current benefits system is perfect – it is anything but perfect and needs re-working – but we sill need to provide an environment whereby people are encouraged to ‘make’ our future workforce as opposed to complaining that we ‘don’t want kids so shouldn’t have to pay for them out of our taxes’

I thought Britain was supposed to be overcrowded?

And then there's the "sustainable development" crowd.

I would have thought these people would be overjoyed by the apparently increasing distaste for having children these days, as that's the solution to both surely?

Besides, I'm a "baby buster" so in my dotage I hardly think I'll be screwing the young over, there was an increase in births during the 80s. On the contrary, demographically we're the most screwed over generation of all.

[Reck B]

No, its fine for people to be rich and competent, they certainly exist. But it is certainly through some sort of effort and struggle that we achieve both 'things' and character; rich people certainly can do this, its just they have the option of not bothering. Wealth can be a bit of a disability sometimes (a la Paris Hilton), one of the things public schools try to inculcate are notions of vocation and service to counteract this tendency. In Osborne I see no real evidence he has been prepared to put the extra effort in. He's bumbled his way into power largely off the back of being David Cameron's chum rather than 'will to power'.

With a wealthy background you can discount certain motivations (money) to reach such levels of power. Which is a positive in my view. I'd sooner have a government of unpaid wealthy, succesful, educated politicians than paid careerist ones.

[Reck B]

Yeah Cogs - get that chip of your shoulder - only 16 of the front bench are Eton educated millionaires with massive inherited fortunes.

What are you expecting - normal people with experinence of working for a living and having to think about paying bills etc?

Excellent. Just the sort of standard of education required to run a country properly.

[swissy_fit]

No, its fine for people to be rich and competent, they certainly exist. But it is certainly through some sort of effort and struggle that we achieve both 'things' and character; rich people certainly can do this, its just they have the option of not bothering. Wealth can be a bit of a disability sometimes (a la Paris Hilton), one of the things public schools try to inculcate are notions of vocation and service to counteract this tendency. In Osborne I see no real evidence he has been prepared to put the extra effort in. He's bumbled his way into power largely off the back of being David Cameron's chum rather than 'will to power'.

"Will to power".

Hmm, not convinced that's always a good thing to have. Blair had plenty, as did Brown, it didn't help much.

Our private schoolboys in power are no match for their Victorian counterparts, perhaps, they don't get drilled with muscular Christian virtues any more. BUT, Cameron and Osbourne have the inestimable virtue of not being a mad evil quasi-religious actor and his grumpy economically incompetent sidekick.

I'm amazed at the choice of Osbourne, I have been from the beginning, and believe the Tories might have secured an overall majority if they'd selected Ken Clarke in that role. Now he's there though, I guess he has to have his chance.

[Timak]

With a wealthy background you can discount certain motivations (money) to reach such levels of power. Which is a positive in my view. I'd sooner have a government of unpaid wealthy, succesful, educated politicians than paid careerist ones.

Yep people with a vested interest in the power structure remaining neo-feudal are just who we want in charge of the have-nots....

[Cogs]

With a wealthy background you can discount certain motivations (money) to reach such levels of power. Which is a positive in my view. I'd sooner have a government of unpaid wealthy, succesful, educated politicians than paid careerist ones.<br />

In what way does that describe George Osborne? The idea that money is a motivation towards political power is a bit silly in this country anyway. It might be different in selected Africa nations or maybe Russia. Don't take this the wrong way, but its a 'little people' argument, you'll hear this said in so many words every time a Tory grandee grumbles about the 'rations' he has to live on. The City pays teaboys more than MPs get. We were governed for a long time by rich men largely on inherited wealth as a kind of hobby, the political record as to the physical condition, legal status and working lives of the people of this country should be argument enough. People didn't get back from WW2 and decide they wanted to be governed by the Officer class, there is a reason for this. Edited August 25, 2010 by Cogs

[Cogs]

Excellent. Just the sort of standard of education required to run a country properly.

You may believe to doffing your cap to your 'betters' but I certainly don't.

[EUBanana]

You may believe to doffing your cap to your 'betters' but I certainly don't.

Me neither!

But it's hardly a Tory thing. That is a government thing. In fact, I think the Tories record is far, far better when compared to meddling, bullying socialism in this regard. Meddling and bullying is precisely why Labour would never get my vote. May as well be the BNP as far as I'm concerned. Look at La Toynbee and her elitist scribings. It's always the worse off who get bullied and made to conform by activist government.

Laws, we know what they are and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government.

Edited August 25, 2010 by EUBanana

[Cogs]

<br />Me neither!<br /><br />But it's hardly a Tory thing. That is a government thing. In fact, I think the Tories record is far, far better when compared to meddling, bullying socialism in this regard. Meddling and bullying is precisely why Labour would never get my vote. May as well be the BNP as far as I'm concerned. Look at La Toynbee and her elitist scribings. It's always the worse off who get bullied and made to conform by activist government.<br /><br /><i>Laws, we know what they are and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government.</i><br />

<br /><br /><br />I find this kind of argument hard to process. If I thought New Labour had any interest in socialism I'd have considered joining the party. I just thought they were bossy and scared of the Daily Mail to be honest with you. You are right about Polly btw, you'll notice she doesn't get a very smooth ride from Comments. Ironically she is indeed an aristocrat of sorts, thats why she is tolerated; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Toynbee Edited August 25, 2010 by Cogs

[Reck B]

You may believe to doffing your cap to your 'betters' but I certainly don't.

I don't have any betters.

[EUBanana]

I find this kind of argument hard to process. If I thought New Labour had any interest in socialism I'd have considered joining the party.

A bit of a define-a-thon I guess, I don't think Labour's idea of socialism is much different from democratic socialism as it is practiced worldwide?

I guess when I say 'socialism' I really mean 'socialism as it is practiced and as is on offer in this country' which is what it is relevant, really.

. You are right about Polly btw, you'll notice she doesn't get a very smooth ride from Comments. Ironically she is indeed an aristocrat of sorts, thats why she is tolerated; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Toynbee

Yeah, I know Polly isn't popular in the comments, but she is apparently extremely popular in the media profession. She's the ultimate lefty luvvie. Wasn't she voted most influential political commenter or something a year or two ago? Scary.

When I think of Labour I think of her. After all, it's her and people like her who run and support the Labour Party.

I really don't think in the Good Old Days things were any better. I don't think Polly is either a step up or a step down from some union thug like Aneurin Bevan, who would have been a fascist if he wasn't one of those loyal Party drones that the Left seems to cultivate. More of a movement to the side, really.

[northwestsmith2]

If someone loses £400 per month in housing benefit that's not the same as a pirvate renter losing £400 in income. The catch 22 of needing somewhere to live but unable to live on the street until prices come down doesn't apply to someone on housing benefit, the landlord knows they can't force them to leverage even higher rents.

Edited August 25, 2010 by northwestsmith2

[Cogs]

A bit of a define-a-thon I guess, I don't think Labour's idea of socialism is much different from democratic socialism as it is practiced worldwide?

I guess when I say 'socialism' I really mean 'socialism as it is practiced and as is on offer in this country' which is what it is relevant, really.

Yeah, I know Polly isn't popular in the comments, but she is apparently extremely popular in the media profession.  She's the ultimate lefty luvvie.  Wasn't she voted most influential political commenter or something a year or two ago?  Scary.  

When I think of Labour I think of her.  After all, it's her and people like her who run and support the Labour Party.

I really don't think in the Good Old Days things were any better.  I don't think Polly is either a step up or a step down from some  union thug like Aneurin Bevan, who would have been a fascist if he wasn't one of those loyal Party drones that the Left seems to cultivate.  More of a movement to the side, really.

Aneurin Bevan was a great man. I think its at this point we will have to accept our differences.

[EUBanana]

Aneurin Bevan was a great man. I think its at this point we will have to accept our differences.

"The Prime Minister must realise that in this country there is a taunt on everyone's lips that if Rommel had been in the British Army he would still have been a sergeant...There is a man in the British Army who flung 150,000 men across the Ebro in Spain, Michael Dunbar. He is at present a sergeant...He was Chief of Staff in Spain, he won the Battle of the Ebro, and he is a sergeant."

Delusional communist fanatic or just a credulous stooge, take your pick. I assume the former.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_ebro

Anyway, </digression>, great man or not, me bringing him up proves my point. Nye Bevan wasn't a live and let live sort. To him I'd just be another sausage to be processed by the factory of government - same as Gordon Brown's attitude. NuLabour or heroic Socialist, same deal to me - it all boils down to oppressive meddling and bullying. Hence why I do not see any real difference between NuLab and OldLab. Saying "oh but Bliar wasn't a socialist" doesn't wash.

The Tories have done their fair share of meddling and bullying too, but nothing like as bad as Labour have managed, thus bringing me neatly back to You may believe to doffing your cap to your 'betters' but I certainly don't.. I'm sick of activist governments bullying the poor into doing what they want.

Edited August 25, 2010 by EUBanana

[hilltop]

Here's Clegg's riposte to the IFS report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11086137

Apparently, the IFS did not take into account what the Coalition will do to move people off benefits and into work.

How stupid of the IFS not to factor in the surge in highly paid employment which will scoop up all the unemployed and disabled!

It would be nice to see Ian Duncan Smith's proposals and the amount of money the Treasury will sanction for this, let alone have some indication of its impact BEFORE the cuts take place.

Does Clegg really believe that All the people on benefits will prosper under the Government's plans? Will none be left behind in greater poverty? What of the retired?

In my humble, objective opinion, Clegg is losing the plot.

[EUBanana]

Does Clegg really believe that All the people on benefits will prosper under the Government's plans? Will none be left behind in greater poverty? What of the retired?

There have been people left behind in greater poverty than before with every government policy ever made, by the left or the right.

Gordon Brown certainly left behind masses of poverty, did he not.

[hilltop]

There have been people left behind in greater poverty than before with every government policy ever made, by the left or the right.

Gordon Brown certainly left behind masses of poverty, did he not.

Not the point. Brown is no longer in power. Clegg is trying to justify the Coalitions new policies. That is what has to be justified because the Coalition promised that they would make things better and fairer.

[EUBanana]

Not the point. Brown is no longer in power. Clegg is trying to justify the Coalitions new policies. That is what has to be justified because the Coalition promised that they would make things better and fairer.

Well, my point is really that there are going to be winners and losers no matter what, it's unrealistic to demand 100% success rates, especially in politics,and especially when implementing policies that lean towards individualism.

Edited August 25, 2010 by EUBanana

[hilltop]

Well, my point is really that there are going to be winners and losers no matter what, it's unrealistic to demand 100% success rates, especially in politics,and especially when implementing policies that lean towards individualism.

But it is the rich who are losing least. The Coalition have been trying to say that it is otherwise. They have been found out in a lie.

The argument about moving people off benefits and into work is just an aspiration. There is no evidence as to how and to what extent it will work.

We are being sold a pig in a poke.

[ralphmalph]

But it is the rich who are losing least. The Coalition have been trying to say that it is otherwise. They have been found out in a lie.

The argument about moving people off benefits and into work is just an aspiration. There is no evidence as to how and to what extent it will work.

We are being sold a pig in a poke.

I lose the will to live with you lefties.

Here is the Income re-distribution under Brown

This is what it resulted in.

Moving people off benefits to work is a VERY WORTHWHILE apsiration and should be supported. To you lefties the coalition have failed to do this after 100 days. Well Mr 10p tax fiasco Brown had 13 years to condemn millions to a life of Trash daytime TV and benefits so perhaps the coalition should get 13 years to be judged on.

[EUBanana]

But it is the rich who are losing least. The Coalition have been trying to say that it is otherwise. They have been found out in a lie.

However, while the institute’s analysis confirms Treasury forecasts that every section of society will be worse off as a result of the Budget, it indicates a large disparity in how it affects different people. The wealthiest 10 per cent of families with children — those with household earnings of about £100,000 a year — will lose a total of 6.68 per cent (£6,658) of their annual income.

Top-earning childless couples will lose 4.23 per cent a year, a reduction of £2,716.

Wealthier pensioners will lose 3.59 per cent of their income, £1,995 for the richest 10 per cent of the over-65s.

??

The argument about moving people off benefits and into work is just an aspiration. There is no evidence as to how and to what extent it will work.

Well, the government doesn't know what the private sector is going to do. The government finds it hard enough to predict what it itself will do in 2 or 3 years, let alone what the private sector will be doing - in fact I think nobody can really predict that, or they'd be making off like bandits on the stock exchange!

[MinceBalls]

FWIW, society would be better off if more kids were born to the responsible and less to the irresponsible would it not Mr Irresponsible?

Yes, I agree with you but we are where we are and we need either kids OR immigrants. I did say that the system needs overhauling, it sucks and I am happy to read your comment. BUT there are some subsidies out there for having kids that do currently help responsible people / parents.

I just don't like some of the attitudes (which wouldn't change no matter what the system) of people and certain right wing papers who seem to think that the counties woes are all down to the 'lazy sods' and 'benefit cheats'. Does anyone remember the tax dodging wealth stealers? Because the Tories and the Tory papers are trying to transfer the blame from their buddies to the ‘benefit cheats’ as we speak. And it is fooling some on this site.

[Olebrum]

I lose the will to live with you lefties.

Here is the Income re-distribution under Brown

Brown\Blair cockhandedly used the same failed agenda the ConDems are following.

Getting people off benefits and into jobs, great idea, what jobs though?

[hilltop]

The IFS figures, shown in the BBC report in my first post, show that the poorest 10% lose more than the richest 10%.

Clegg did not argue about the calculations, just that they did not reflect the Government's aspiration to move people off benefits. It is that assertion which has yet to be proven.

I would certainly agree that it is a worthwhile aspiration, I just do not see anything which makes it anything but wishful thinking.