The tories policies are working

Discuss The tories policies are working in the Electricians Chat - Off Topic Chat area at ElectriciansForums.net

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.
 
Adam W said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the bedroom tax isn't a draconian policy designed specifically to deprive those at the bottom of the social scale.
 
trev said:
So the bedroom tax isn't a draconian policy designed specifically to deprive those at the bottom of the social scale.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Diddy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Adam W said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
trev said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup. A policy continued by labour
 
trev said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
So if I buy my breakfast at the same place every day then, by the same logic, if the owner decides to sell it I can realistically expect to be given a massive discount?
I don't have to look very hard to find something to blame for most of the ills afflicting this country today Adam, the majority of them can easily be traced back to thatcherism.
 
trev said:
So if I buy my breakfast at the same place every day then, by the same logic, if the owner decides to sell it I can realistically expect to be given a massive discount?
I don't have to look very hard to find something to blame for most of the ills afflicting this country today Adam, the majority of them can easily be traced back to thatcherism.
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make is if you put spin on it, ie saying they had a 'right' to buy their house under the aptly named 'right to buy' initiative, it gives it a sense of credibility, ignoring the fact that it was only called that because someone called it that.
As I said earlier, I believe social housing should be allocated based on present need, not whoever demonstrated a need at the time they applied for it and staying there for life and blocking someone who might have a greater need for it.

Using your breakfast example, no you wouldn't expect to get a discount on buying the cafe, but it might be when the new owners took over that you realise for the last 5 years you'd been getting a discount or an extra large helping in recognition of your loyalty. You could look at this pessimistically and say the withdrawal of your discount is some kind of loyalty 'punishment' - having to pay the same as everyone else even after getting a discount for so long... Like the bedroom tax.
The obvious answer is if you don't like having to pay extra for an extra rasher of bacon like everyone else does, then you can go somewhere else. You may have been going there for years, but to the new owner you're just another customer.
 
Adam W said:
22, or 63%. And out of the last 17 years, 13, or 76%, were under a Labour administration.
Click to expand...

How do you make 22 - you can't count the current lot as Conservative, because if you do that you may as well include "new" Labour and hey presto the answer is 35.

Maybe thats the answer Trev is looking for!
 
But without the influx of people coming here all claiming social housing therefore putting a strain on the housing then it would have been ok to stay there for life . Housing would have kept up with growth ; but when the populAtion doubles no way can new housing keep up
 
Murdoch said:
How do you make 22 - you can't count the current lot as Conservative, because if you do that you may as well include "new" Labour and hey presto the answer is 35.

Maybe thats the answer Trev is looking for!
Click to expand...
Whichever way you look at it Labour have had ample opportunity to reverse any unpopular Conservative policy.
Personally I don't think I'd count the first 11 years while Thatcher was in office because she implemented the policy, so she's hardly going to do a U turn on it, and it's doubtful that Major would have in the 7 years after, so you can only really count the last 17 years; if we're not counting the last 4 years of coalition then Labour have been in power for all of it but still didn't repeal the right to buy.
 
Adam W said:
Whichever way you look at it Labour have had ample opportunity to reverse any unpopular Conservative policy.
Personally I don't think I'd count the first 11 years while Thatcher was in office because she implemented the policy, so she's hardly going to do a U turn on it, and it's doubtful that Major would have in the 7 years after, so you can only really count the last 17 years; if we're not counting the last 4 years of coalition then Labour have been in power for all of it but still didn't repeal the right to buy.
Click to expand...

110% correct so how any left leaning voter can blame Thatcher anymore when New Labour had their 13 years is beyond me.
 
Adam W said:
As I said earlier, I believe social housing should be allocated based on present need, not whoever demonstrated a need at the time they applied for it and staying there for life and blocking someone who might have a greater need for it.
Click to expand...

Family A is allocated a house because of their need, family B at a later date needs housing. Are you saying that family A should be made homeless because family B is in greater need?
Your argument doesn't hold water because by evicting family A they are automatically on the list of those in need of priority housing
 
dingledong said:
But without the influx of people coming here all claiming social housing therefore putting a strain on the housing then it would have been ok to stay there for life . Housing would have kept up with growth ; but when the populAtion doubles no way can new housing keep up
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is actually fact.

My opinion is that with the population rising by more than 200,000 per year, and with home building some way below this, the sheer shortage of homes has driven prices up and caused more pressure on incomes and the ability to rent or buy a roof over your head.

If immigration hadn't risen its quite possible the housing starts may have kept pace with the needs of the UK.

what isn't in dispute is the sheer lack of building of council/social housing since about 1970
 
trev said:
Family A is allocated a house because of their need, family B at a later date needs housing. Are you saying that family A should be made homeless because family B is in greater need?
Your argument doesn't hold water because by evicting family A they are automatically on the list of those in need of priority housing
Click to expand...
If family A were given a 3 bedroom house because they have 4 young children, after all the children have grown up and left home it's inappropriate for a single woman, or even a couple, to still be living in a 3 bedroom house.
Similarly if the bedrooms are occupied by children of working age, or if the woman doesn't want to move out because she considers it her home, they should be charged the market rate; if the woman charged her kids rent like a lot of parents do, she'd be making money out of the welfare system, or if you want to use uglier words she'd be 'defrauding the taxpayer'. Giving the right to buy seems like a happy medium.
 
Adam W said:
If family A were given a 3 bedroom house because they have 4 young children, after all the children have grown up and left home it's inappropriate for a single woman, or even a couple, to still be living in a 3 bedroom house.
Similarly if the bedrooms are occupied by children of working age, or if the woman doesn't want to move out because she considers it her home, they should be charged the market rate; if the woman charged her kids rent like a lot of parents do, she'd be making money out of the welfare system, or if you want to use uglier words she'd be 'defrauding the taxpayer'. Giving the right to buy seems like a happy medium.
Click to expand...

What Councils need to do is go round and check that the residents in the houses are those that the Council have let them too.

Recently I heard a story on the radio where a family had been able to fund their "own" home off the profit they were making sub-letting their Council house - ie. family pays low rent to Council, but lets house at market rate.

Its all a shambles and IF and I say IF Gordon Brown had embarked on a massive house building splurge rather than the off balance sheet, lets commit out Grand Children to PFI deals then may be the lefties would have a point.

Lets also not forget that Gordon Browns raid on the private pension funds ruined millions of peoples retirements. Mine included.
 
dingledong said:
Most parents do not charge their children proper rent
Also most children if they could afford would not live at home with their parents
Click to expand...

Always been like that.

Eons ago when I was at home, my mum took about 25% of my take home pay, my best mates mother took about 5% of his pay!
 
A friend of mine died a month or so back.
He was on disability benefits, which were stopped.
He had to get rid of his car and find a job.
Second day at work he had a heart attack.
One less sponger to support.
 
Oh come on how could anyone comment on that ? ?
Why was he on benefits in the first place?
Why was he taken of them
Was he completely taken of benefits ? ?
I can't see that but knowing how stupid some of the staff are it's possible
If a man came to me who had been on disability benefits I would be careful before giving him a job as he has been an unwell person !
And your saying the job was to blame for the heart attack ? ? ? ?
 
He was on benefits in the first place because his Doctor determined he was not fit to work due to his heart condition.
He was taken off benefits because he was assessed as being fit for work under the new scheme.
He could lift his arms above his head, he could pick something up from the floor.
His benefits were cut to such an extent, that he could no longer afford to keep and run a car.
No not entirely, I imagine that stress caused by having his benefits cut played a part.

We as a Country employ the vast majority of Doctors, even private Doctors are in most cases employed by the NHS or Regional Health Authority in some capacity.
We are now employing some bods in offices whose jobs are to disagree with the Doctors that we employ.
The fact that the Doctors have had years of medical training and these bods none what so ever is a little disturbing. A bit like entrusting a Kitchen Fitter to re-wire a house rather than an Electrician.
 
there's always hooror stories, whichever government is in power. decisions are not made by government, they are made by unelected bureaucratic pen pushers, must of whom belong to left wing public service unions ( e.g. unison ( we gotta protect our goddam index linked pensions )).
 
What I don't understand is why the UK "appears" to have so may "ill" people who can't work? We seem to have a disproportional number!
 
telectrix said:
there's always hooror stories, whichever government is in power. decisions are not made by government, they are made by unelected bureaucratic pen pushers
Click to expand...
Who act according to the diktats of whichever government is in power. The amount of horror stories is increasing almost daily, I signed a petition calling for an inquiry into the circumstances behind the suicide of a decorated former soldier who suffered from PTSD. He had his benefits stopped and eventually took his own life, his family found he had less than £2.00 to his name.

Now I know that some of you will ask where were his family while this man was suffering but remember, he was suffering from PTSD which is a mental disorder. He wasn;t thinking straight so we don't know what was going on in his head.
 
the problem is differentiating between those who can't work ( and deserve support ) and those who won't work ( and deserve nowt except a 1 way ticket to that australian penal colony. oh, bugger. it's no more)
 
Murdoch said:
What I don't understand is why the UK "appears" to have so may "ill" people who can't work? We seem to have a disproportional number!
Click to expand...
People who cannot work have usually been told that by a properly qualified person who has years of experience in the medical profession.
 
telectrix said:
the problem is differentiating between those who can't work ( and deserve support ) and those who won't work ( and deserve nowt except a 1 way ticket to that australian penal colony. oh, bugger. it's no more)
Click to expand...
In my opinion that's why we have doctors who can diagnose problems someone may have. They can usually tell who is swinging the lead.
 
and so a doctor's report, stating that a person is unfit for work, should be taken by the authorities as proven, and appropriate benefits awarded. then again, there have been several reports of guys certified as unfit to work toting bins, jogging, surfing, etc. so even doctors can have the wool pulled over sometimes.
 
trev said:
In my opinion that's why we have doctors who can diagnose problems someone may have. They can usually tell who is swinging the lead.
Click to expand...

Any old monkey could abuse the old Disability Allowance system. Almost (!) just saying you were ill to your GP was enough to get on it!
I know a bloke who was on the Disability, he had minor mental health problems.
He was perfectly capable of working and he used to boast about his sponging.
He was rightly booted off it when it changed and got ZERO sympathy from any of us when it happened.
 
We complain when unqualified kitchen and bathroom fitters question our opinions so why should we not object when a pen pusher queries the opinion of a doctor?
Yes there has to be a system of checks and balances because, as you say, the medical profession can and does make mistakes/have the wool pulled over but a diagnosis should only be queried by another doctor, one who does not have targets to meet or a vested interest. He or she should be paid according to the number of people they examined, not by the number they miraculously declare fit for work which is what the pen pushers are doing now.
 
a couple of points raised in that article.

1. drug addicts and alcholics... pay for1 course of rehab. then stop all benefits.

2. winter fuel payments for those living abroad... stop it.
 
I suggest it's back to Labour and their spin - it seems to me they manipulated the unemployment figures by getting people off unemployment benefits and onto disability benefits.
They might need a doctors note but there are many ailments which can't necessarily be proven with a blood test or x-ray - if someone complains of the appropriate symptoms a doctor will match that up to something which warrants signing off work.
 
Yes both of em manipulate facts and figures for there own benefit
I e most foreign workers are not on the dole but unemployment has gone down . I can't see both being right
 
Every time I go to Whitechapel hospital I would say it's 7 to 1 and its all old white people
In England over 90% of mugging is done by black people
In Scotland over 90% of mugging is done by white people ( just to keep you happy )
But if I ask for records based on colour they will not show it
If you asked the social what percentage of people not born in this country were on the dole
They say they do not keep records of that but on every bloody form it asks your origin so they must know surely.
And I can't paste and copy but I am getting there and one day I will be able to got the avatar up
Thanks to someone on the forum who would be embarrassed if I told you who it was so I won't
 
dingledong said:
Every time I go to Whitechapel hospital I would say it's 7 to 1 and its all old white people
In England over 90% of mugging is done by black people
In Scotland over 90% of mugging is done by white people ( just to keep you happy )
But if I ask for records based on colour they will not show it
If you asked the social what percentage of people not born in this country were on the dole
They say they do not keep records of that but on every bloody form it asks your origin so they must know surely.
And I can't paste and copy but I am getting there and one day I will be able to got the avatar up
Thanks to someone on the forum who would be embarrassed if I told you who it was so I won't
Click to expand...
Bollox
 
New posts

Reply to The tories policies are working in the Electricians Chat - Off Topic Chat area at ElectriciansForums.net

Similar Threads

T
The Adult Apprenticeship Funding Scandal
I hope people on this forum don't think i am whining too much or jumping on my soap box unnecasserily but i wanted to post a letter i am writing...
    • Like
Replies
25
Views
7K
Teslaisgod
T
F
FIT payments - A cut too soon, a cut too Deep and consequences thereof:
FIT payments - A cut too soon, a cut too Deep and consequences thereof: Why a cut to FIT tariffs is necessary: It is necessary because the FIT...
    • Like
Replies
8
Views
3K
babba
B
Dan
ElectriciansForums.co.uk Forum Rules - Updated 25/10/08
Electricians Forums .co.uk Forum Rules - Last Updated 25/10/08 Note from Dan: I aim to make this forum a safe, happy place to find electrical...
    • Like
Replies
0
Views
21K
Dan
Dan

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

YOUR Unread Posts

Tags

advice aus cable circuit course earth electric electrical electrician hello led light lighting lights looking new please question rcd socket supply switch testing training wiring
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock