The tories policies are working

[Adam W]

I expect he could successfully appeal that. There is also evidence of people writing on their job search record that they don't want a job, writing a shopping list, or parking a work van outside and going in to sign on dressed in work clothes. These are the reasons a clampdown is needed, but as I said it seems to be the soft targets that get the rough end - the pee taking chavs who have no intention of working know if they cause enough of a fuss the jobcentre staff will cave in for an easy job.

 

[trev]

He did successfully appeal against it but why should he have been put through the added stress in the first place. As you say, he was an easy target.

 

[Adam W]

Obviously he shouldn't have been put through the added stress in the first place, but when spending gets out of control, action has to be taken.
It was the same with the NHS - Labour threw a load of money at it to grab headlines, but the reality was it got worse. The money wasn't spent on doctors and nurses, it was spent on IT and bureaucracy, but when the tories went to take the money back the back office bureaucrats didn't want to give up their jobs so hid behind the front line.

 

[trev]

It was the same with the NHS - Labour threw a load of money at it to grab headlines, but the reality was it got worse. The money wasn't spent on doctors and nurses, it was spent on IT and bureaucracy,

Please explain how the waiting lists went down under the last administration then.

 

[telectrix]

manipulatioin of statistics. labour were expert at that. they invented spin.

 

[Adam W]

Please explain how the waiting lists went down under the last administration then.

It's not all about waiting lists and league tables, but the things you can't easily measure. Hospital food is always a favourite - you can double the amount each meal costs but that's just wasteful if the quality doesn't 'double', if there even is a way of measuring that.
As it happens, Labour's new GP contracts made it harder to get an appointment to see a GP, which had a knock-on effect on A&E so increased waiting times there as well.
NHS 'worse value for money after investment' - politics.co.uk - Health
NHS waiting lists worse with Labour - News - The Independent
The graph that shows Labour is to blame for the pressures on A&E - Telegraph

 

[Octopus]

They don't, but then again they'll probably not have targets for how many people they have to sanction.

Hum.... who ever forms a Government next year, be it Labour, Conservative, Labour/Liberal, Conservative/Liberal, etc, etc, will have to carry on as is ....................

 

[trev]

Hum.... who ever forms a Government next year, be it Labour, Conservative, Labour/Liberal, Conservative/Liberal, etc, etc, will have to carry on as is ....................

They won't have to punish people for being poor though.

 

[Octopus]

They won't have to punish people for being poor though.

Define poor!

Nothing will change post May '15, it can't.

What the UK needs is for the EU to recover, but that isn't likely as long as the Brusselles ostriches have their collective heads in the sand.....

And if you think punative taxes are the answer, just cast your eyes across the channel to see the absolute mess France is in, as a direct result of the punative tax regime implemented by Mr Hollande.

 

[Adam W]

They won't have to punish people for being poor though.

The government aren't punishing people for being poor, but they're not rewarding them either.
The 'punishment' for being poor is, well, being poor. The measures in place in this country to act as a safety net are some of the best in the world, so good in fact they're used by some as a way of life.
This brings us back to the original issue - the benefits system is being milked by those who know how to play it while it seems to be failing those who really need it.

 

[trev]

I don't want punitive taxes mate. I just want a fairer society. One where millionaires don't get a £40k tax cut while people at the other end of the scale have to rely on food banks.
One where things aren't sold to the highest bidder just because they can be. Where pensioners don't have to make a choice between heat or eat. Where large corporations are forced to pay the amount of tax the law says they should.
Anything wrong with that?
I could have went on but chose not to.

 

[trev]

The government aren't punishing people for being poor, but they're not rewarding them either.
The 'punishment' for being poor is, well, being poor. The measures in place in this country to act as a safety net are some of the best in the world, so good in fact they're used by some as a way of life.
This brings us back to the original issue - the benefits system is being milked by those who know how to play it while it seems to be failing those who really need it.

So the bedroom tax isn't a draconian policy designed specifically to deprive those at the bottom of the social scale.

 

[Adam W]

So the bedroom tax isn't a draconian policy designed specifically to deprive those at the bottom of the social scale.

People seem to forget that a council house isn't their house, even if they've lived there their whole life. If you rent a house privately, your children are born and grow up there, it still isn't your house and if the owner wants you out you have to move out. Again, social housing should be there as a safety net for those who need it, and it should be 'adequate', not luxurious. Similarly someone should not be entitled to a council house simply because they needed it at the time they moved in, but are now perfectly capable of paying their own way. The definition of a 'spare' bedroom is one that isn't being used, one that's surplus to requirements, and I don't see why I should be working to pay for a luxury for someone else which I can't afford myself.
There may be a few cases where someone genuinely needs an extra room, but these should be judged on a case by case basis.

 

[trev]

Adam it isn't a luxury. people are having their benefits cut because of spare rooms when there is a shortage of smaller properties to move them into.
It's not about luxury mate, most social housing is far from luxurious.

 

[Diddy]

Social housing is/was meant to be completely different from benefits. It was never meant to be a safety net. The mantra was you work, get married have kids a house would be available for the family. That was the goal. The object was not 5 nor 10 year tenancies....It WAS supposed to be your HOME and if that meant "for life" then so be it.
The object of the game was if you provide food and shelter for the minions then that will lead to a productive society in terms of wealth and output. Something strange happened just around the middle of 1979 that changed all that type of thinking. Now a house is not a home anymore but an "asset" and we all now know their is "no such thing as society"....much to our detriment and the very reason people walk by when another is being attacked where 40 years ago they may have stopped and helped as they were part of that daft thing called society.....The police force were pretty popular back then too and teachers.

 

[Adam W]

Social housing is/was meant to be completely different from benefits. It was never meant to be a safety net. The mantra was you work, get married have kids a house would be available for the family. That was the goal. The object was not 5 nor 10 year tenancies....It WAS supposed to be your HOME and if that meant "for life" then so be it.
The object of the game was if you provide food and shelter for the minions then that will lead to a productive society in terms of wealth and output. Something strange happened just around the middle of 1979 that changed all that type of thinking. Now a house is not a home anymore but an "asset" and we all now know their is "no such thing as society"....much to our detriment and the very reason people walk by when another is being attacked where 40 years ago they may have stopped and helped as they were part of that daft thing called society.....The police force were pretty popular back then too and teachers.

It was, yes - you weren't given a council house because you needed one, you were awarded a council house if you were considered suitable. They were given to hard-working but poorly paid families, not teenage single mothers. Nowadays sending unmarried mothers to institutions and locking disabled people up in asylums is considered 'draconian', which has led to a shortage of social housing.

 

[trev]

Nowadays sending unmarried mothers to institutions and locking disabled people up in asylums is considered 'draconian', which has led to a shortage of social housing.

Makes a change from blaming immigration I suppose.
What has led to a shortage of social housing is the lack of investment in it since St Margaret of Kesteven decided it would be a good idea to sell as much of it off as possible for three tenths of bugger all.

 

[Octopus]

Makes a change from blaming immigration I suppose.
What has led to a shortage of social housing is the lack of investment in it since St Margaret of Kesteven decided it would be a good idea to sell as much of it off as possible for three tenths of bugger all.

Yup. A policy continued by labour

 

[trev]

Out of the last 35 years, how many have been under a conservative administration?

 

[Adam W]

Makes a change from blaming immigration I suppose.
What has led to a shortage of social housing is the lack of investment in it since St Margaret of Kesteven decided it would be a good idea to sell as much of it off as possible for three tenths of bugger all.

Immigrants wouldn't have been given council houses either, so yes immigration is still to blame.
Remember the social housing wasn't sold off to faceless investors at rock bottom prices for no particular reason like Brown did with the country's gold reserves, it was sold to the families living in it. To put a bit of spin on it they had a right to buy their home, but I suppose you have to find some way of blaming Margaret Thatcher for it.