State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[amateur51]

Fine - so how would you propose to do this? Presumably not by introducing the measures proposed by IDS...

Careful ahinton - if you continue to post replies, you may be accused of being a stalker.

Corporal Jones was right.

[ahinton]

The word "handouts" immediately reminded me of them but I see you beat me to it.

The current propaganda seems to be that poor people are poor because of some failing - to "make something of themselves" - whereas plenty of evidence shows that, at least in the UK, the most accurate predictor of future success (academic, economic, you name it) is parental wealth. No, we don't empower people by giving them handouts, we empower people by managing the national economy so that living-wage employment opportunities are expanded, something the current government has shown a complete lack of interest in doing. "Handouts" on the other hand are often a matter of surviving or not. Cutting benefits like this government has done, is doing and intends to continue doing is punishing people for being poor. Bringing about equality is not about "chopping down successful people", it's about creating a situation where people don't fall into poverty and where they receive assistance if perchance they do. If that were the case there would be a good deal less fuss made about fat cats. One thing that's striking about the "democracy rankings" mentioned earlier by Lord Oven is that the top three, all Scandinavian countries, are significantly more equal societies than the UK as far as wealth distribution is concerned, and this they achieve by relatively high progressive taxation and an extensive social security system.

Anyway, returning to the state of the parties, Osborne's autumn statement seems to have prodiced a negative effect for the Tories in terms of opinion polls. I would stick my neck out at this stage and say that despite all the fevered speculation in news media the most likely outcome next May is a majority Labour government. I don't say that because it's my favoured outcome although of course there are far worse possibilities.

Agreed on all counts except your last paragraph; I agree that the reent announcements of Osborne, IDS and others seem likely to make the Tories ever less electable, but I suspect that the effect of this will be to make any possibility of majority government even more remote, not least because the majority of those Tories who are sufficiently unimpressed with such announcements will likely transfer their electoral allegiances to parties other than Labour.

[ahinton]

Careful ahinton - if you continue to post replies, you may be accused of being a stalker.

But as I'm not being one, I can take that on the chin! - and in any case, what are YOU doing replying to ME?(!)...

[amateur51]

That's what I thought you'd say. But what would happen to the people who decided that they didn't want to work for pay that isn't enough to live on (or didn't want the uncertainty of zero-hours contracts, or a part time job)? They would be refused benefits. So they take the job, are eligible for benefits and are demonised as 'scroungers'. They have no power in 'the market', which is managed - manipulated - by employers (who get subsidised for paying low wages through tax credits)

Beautifully summed up, Flossie - a classic double-bind (I think!).

[P. G. Tipps]

That's what I thought you'd say. But what would happen to the people who decided that they didn't want to work for pay that isn't enough to live on (or didn't want the uncertainty of zero-hours contracts, or a part time job)? They would be refused benefits. So they take the job, are eligible for benefits and are demonised as 'scroungers'. They have no power in 'the market', which is managed - manipulated - by employers (who get subsidised for paying low wages through tax credits)

Nobody has said that all those on 'benefits' are 'scroungers', the great majority will no doubt be perfectly genuine.

Are you telling us that there are NO 'scroungers' on 'benefits' or that, if there are, they shouldn't be rooted out and charged with fraud against the taxpayer... ?

'Scroungers' are just cheats after all ...

[amateur51]

Nobody has said that all those on 'benefits' are 'scroungers', the great majority will no doubt be perfectly genuine.

Are you telling us that there are NO 'scroungers' on 'benefits' or that, if there are, they shouldn't be rooted out and charged with fraud against the taxpayer... ?

'Scroungers' are just cheats after all ...

I seem to recall that research showed that the amount paid illegitimately to people claiming welfare benefits was dwarfed by the sums owed to the Treasury by tax fiddlers and avoiders and other forms of cheating.

You'll doubtless want evidence of this, so I'll go a-hunting

[Beef Oven!]

Careful ahinton - if you continue to post replies, you may be accused of being a stalker.

Corporal Jones was right.

Can you just stop this ad-hominem crap? Warning people about me, now. Just fuck off, please. Your constant attention is unwanted and nasty. Please stop.

The 30 0r 40 ad-hominum posts that you have made on me are tantamount to stalking and I find it very creepy.

[MrGongGong]

Are you telling us that there are NO 'scroungers' on 'benefits' or that, if there are, they shouldn't be rooted out and charged with fraud against the taxpayer... ?
.

Of course there are, they live in big houses in London, Windsor, Sandringham and sometimes in Scotland.

[amateur51]

Can you just stop this ad-hominem crap? Warning people about me, now. Just fuck off, please. Your constant attention is unwanted and nasty. Please stop.

The 30 0r 40 ad-hominum posts that you have made on me are tantamount to stalking and I find it very creepy.

I understood that you had me on ignore, I'll bear this in mind.

[Beef Oven!]

Well I for one don't go in for the "politics of envy" and never have; I just don't care how much rich people have except to the extent that their riches has been dependent upon screwing the poor and making them poorer. Unlike some here, I am more exercised by poverty than by inequality, although that's not to say that I uphold inequality - I don't - but where, for that matter, do Richard Barrett's statements that "bringing about equality is not about "chopping down successful people", it's about creating a situation where people don't fall into poverty and where they receive assistance if perchance they do" and "if that were the case there would be a good deal less fuss made about fat cats" suggest "the politics of envy" and the desire "to cut down the big trees instead of growing the smaller ones"?

As I have said before, if any rich people have stolen from poor people, they should be prosecuted and any property returned to the rightful owners.

[Beef Oven!]

I understood that you had me on ignore, I'll bear this in mind.

Your constant ad-hominem comments are very unwelcome. I do not come onto this forum to be victimised, it is unacceptable. And I personally find it creepy, please stop.

I ignore you, I do not respond to you, other than to assert my complaint. I ignore you.

Post whatever you like, I don't give a fig, but stop victimising me. The constant ad-hominum attention is unacceptable and you must stop it.

[MrGongGong]

As I have said before, if any rich people have stolen from poor people, they should be prosecuted and any property returned to the rightful owners.

Excellent idea, I used to own part of the railway and it was stolen and given away to spivs.


I'm looking forward to seeing this in the Kipper manifesto (though it might upset those who are keen on the "Windsors")
is this going to be part of the kipper foreign policy towards Israel ? (ooooops i'm not supposed to talk about that)

[Beef Oven!]

Excellent idea
I'm looking forward to seeing this in the Kipper manifesto (though it might upset those who are keen on the "Windsors")
is this going to be part of the kipper foreign policy towards Israel ? (ooooops i'm not supposed to talk about that)

What have the Windsors nicked!!!?? They've got loads of stuff - why would they nick anything?

[amateur51]

I seem to recall that research showed that the amount paid illegitimately to people claiming welfare benefits was dwarfed by the sums owed to the Treasury by tax fiddlers and avoiders and other forms of cheating.

You'll doubtless want evidence of this, so I'll go a-hunting

That didn't take long ... the ratio of benefits scrounged and taxes avoided and dodged is 1:15.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0436h18

[MrGongGong]

What have the Windsors nicked!!!?? They've got loads of stuff - why would they nick anything?

Large parts of Devon, Cornwall for a start.
Fake and dull

Can I have my railway back please?