My wife has been nagging me to build an extension to the house, where do I apply to get the state to build me an extra room for free ?, I can't find it on the website
Is the state adding extra rooms to these houses or were they already there, so have not been changed since being built so no new added or taken away
Hmm, I wonder if a website called benefitsandwork.co.uk could be running an agenda?
And? would it suit you better if they were called "workandbenefits" or perhaps "dodgingyourtaxesandwork"? what is wrong with people finding out about where they stand when leaving or going back into work? or are you suggesting they are doing something illegal like advice on how to 'fiddle the benefits system'?
Imagine the sheer uproar from some of our Tory chums if there was a website called "how to ensure you are getting all the in work benefits you are legally entitled to"
As for the 'agenda' of the site I linked to, please feel free to point out any significant inaccuracies or downright lies in the information they provide,
North Warwickshire. Tory seat, majority. 54 Working age claimants. 7120.
Thurrock, Con. majority, 92. Working age claimants. 11210
Hendon Con. majority. 106. Working age claimants 9530
Cardiff North Con majority 194 w a c. 5880
Just four, there are lots more in the chart in the link, now, I am not for one minute suggesting that all 7120 working age benefit claimants in North Warwickshire (by the way, a working age benefit claimant is also someone who works 40 hours a week in low paid job,) will turn out and vote Labour, but then 500 would probably be enough,
and the same goes for all the other Tory marginals with a tiny majority, after 5 years of seeing the weakest and the poorest treated like the enemy or criminals, I don't think it's a big leap to expect to see those teeny tiny little majorities evaporate faster than a Lib Dem leaders principles,
Google is your friend, feel free to check independent election results from anywhere you like,
And? would it suit you better if they were called "workandbenefits" or perhaps "dodgingyourtaxesandwork"? what is wrong with people finding out about where they stand when leaving or going back into work? or are you suggesting they are doing something illegal like advice on how to 'fiddle the benefits system'?
Imagine the sheer uproar from some of our Tory chums if there was a website called "how to ensure you are getting all the in work benefits you are legally entitled to"
As for the 'agenda' of the site I linked to, please feel free to point out any significant inaccuracies or downright lies in the information they provide,
Just four, there are lots more in the chart in the link, now, I am not for one minute suggesting that all 7120 working age benefit claimants in North Warwickshire (by the way, a working age benefit claimant is also someone who works 40 hours a week in low paid job,) will turn out and vote Labour, but then 500 would probably be enough,
and the same goes for all the other Tory marginals with a tiny majority, after 5 years of seeing the weakest and the poorest treated like the enemy or criminals, I don't think it's a big leap to expect to see those teeny tiny little majorities evaporate faster than a Lib Dem leaders principles,
Google is your friend, feel free to check independent election results from anywhere you like,
In spite of all your vitriol, what Duncan-Smith has achieved in a parliament of such limited growth is surely the biggest achievement in this government, or many before it. The reality is that spending on in work benefits is very generous.
Duncan-Smith has presided over nearly 1 million people going into work, now we can argue how much of that is carrot or stick, with the generous in-work benefit, or forced into it with reduced benefits but the end result is a remarkable success by Duncan-Smith.
In spite of all your vitriol, what Duncan-Smith has achieved in a parliament of such limited growth is surely the biggest achievement in this government, or many before it. The reality is that spending on in work benefits is very generous.
Duncan-Smith has presided over nearly 1 million people going into work, now we can argue how much of that is carrot or stick, with the generous in-work benefit, or forced into it with reduced benefits but the end result is a remarkable success by Duncan-Smith.
Work-fare is a net drain on the tax-payer, how is that possibly a success?
These are real jobs by the way. Work-fare is communistic in concept, work for room/board and nothing for yourself, the "greater good" etc etc.
In-work benefits are also a drain on the economy. A real Conservative would want people to have proper jobs that pay them a decent wage on which they are actually paying in tax...
Work-fare is a net drain on the tax-payer, how is that possibly a success?
These are real jobs by the way. Work-fare is communistic in concept, work for room/board and nothing for yourself, the "greater good" etc etc.
In-work benefits are also a drain on the economy. A real Conservative would want people to have proper jobs that pay them a decent wage on which they are actually paying in tax...
That may be true but Duncan-Smith will next month have presided over 900,000 more people going into work, a staggering effort. If has has had to use the carrot of generous in work benefit to make it worth it, surely for the long term good it is well worth the price.
That may be true but Duncan-Smith will next month have presided over 900,000 more people going into work, a staggering effort. If has has had to use the carrot of generous in work benefit to make it worth it, surely for the long term good it is well worth the price.
Sorry but in work benefits are means tested, so by the nature of means testing cannot be called generous. And alot of it is smoke and mirrors, paying more out in in work benefits is hiding the true state of affairs, we should break the benefit bill down more into smaller groups and rename some of the, if wages are so low that the number of people that fit into the bracket of needing in work benefits to top up low wages is going to keep increasing then these should be called corprate welfare group as more money is being paid to people who work for buisness that have profits not turnover of millions and billions so not paying the workforce enough to live on but giving high returns for shareholders means these buisness are earning vast profits on the backs of tax payers money having to be paid to their workforce
Sorry but in work benefits are means tested, so by the nature of means testing cannot be called generous. And alot of it is smoke and mirrors, paying more out in in work benefits is hiding the true state of affairs, we should break the benefit bill down more into smaller groups and rename some of the, if wages are so low that the number of people that fit into the bracket of needing in work benefits to top up low wages is going to keep increasing then these should be called corprate welfare group as more money is being paid to people who work for buisness that have profits not turnover of millions and billions so not paying the workforce enough to live on but giving high returns for shareholders means these buisness are earning vast profits on the backs of tax payers money having to be paid to their workforce
Utter nonsense, most of the newly employed are in small business, where your comment is an irrelevance.
the end result is a remarkable success by Duncan-Smith.
Apologies for introducing some actual facts here but they show that Duncan Smith has been an abject failure. Under Duncan Smith we have seen:
Record numbers of successful ESA appeals - 136,539 in 2013/14
Record percentage of successful ESA appeals - 44.3% in 2013/14
Waiting times for ESA assessment soaring, with 500,000 extra people stuck in an assessment system that has almost ground to a halt after the childish and public falling out with Atos, the company whose contract had been extended by Duncan Smith's DWP in 2010.
Awarding 2 of the 3 main PIP contracts to a company that were failing re similar assessments for ESA even though Atos were shown to have been dishonest in their tender by the Public Accounts Committee.
Chaos in the new PIP system with people being left for 6 months+ with no help after a rushed pilot scheme.
Under Universal Credit, in spite of substantial extra costs, Duncan Smith has delivered a caseload of less than 0.6% of what he promised it would be.
His back to work flagship scheme, the Work Programme has delivered results varying from very patchy to abysmal with ESA claimants two and a half times less likely to get a job under the WP than if they had received no help. Providers have been accused of creaming and parking by choosing to help the easiest to get into work while largely ignoring the hardest to help.
The number of new entrants to the Access to Work scheme, designed to help disabled people return to or stay in work, dropping by a third.
A lack of transparency. This has been highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee who said that they have consistently found that the DWP are neither transparent nor open. Even when the courts have told the DWP to release documents which will show why Universal Credit has been such a spectacular failure they are refusing to do so.
Another example of a lack of transparency is the DWP's refusal to fully publish figures for ESA reconsiderations. They will now have to produce them after Sheila Gilmore got the UK Statistics Authority on the case.
Duncan Smith's DWP lead the way in criticism from the UK Statistics Authority.
Serial dishonesty, making claims that are contradicted by the actual facts, eg claims that 2.5 million people were left on IB for a decade without being seen, that 50% of DLA claimants had no corroborating medical evidence, that there was a rush to get DLA just before the introduction of PIP, the numbers going back to work because of the benefits cap etc etc
Failure to deliver any progress on reducing overpayments of benefits and tax credits. The figure has actually gone up in spite of the promise that it would be 25% lower by 2014/15.
Benefits spending will actually, by the DWP's own figures, be £20bn higher in 2015 than in 2010. Probably the biggest area of working age spending is Housing Benefit where spending will be £4.6bn pa higher in 2015 than in 2010.
I could go on but I have made my point and showed why Duncan Smith has been such a spectacular failure. Whether it was the IB-ESA migration, the introduction of PIP or Universal Credit he has tried to rush through his welfare reforms. You cannot do that with something as complicated as the welfare system and, unsurprisingly, he has failed dismally with the result being extra costs to the taxpayer and hardship for claimants. He should have concentrated on one area at a time, got that right and then moved onto the next area. In trying to make a name for himself he has failed a whole nation.
In spite of all your vitriol, what Duncan-Smith has achieved in a parliament of such limited growth is surely the biggest achievement in this government, or many before it. The reality is that spending on in work benefits is very generous.
Duncan-Smith has presided over nearly 1 million people going into work, now we can argue how much of that is carrot or stick, with the generous in-work benefit, or forced into it with reduced benefits but the end result is a remarkable success by Duncan-Smith.
ALL benefits have been reduced both in work and out of work benefits, or do you think fining a low paid worker for spare room crime while freezing any in work benefits increases to below inflation rises for three years (a pay cut and a very significant one for the low paid) has actually improved things for the low paid? "generous in work benefits" my exhaust vent, Almost every single low paid worker is hundreds of pounds a year WORSE off since this lot came to power,
While the top tax bracket lot are around a hundred grand a year better off,
We certainly don't need to argue about the ratio of 'carrot to stick' because there has been NO carrot just plenty of stick,
Once again the Tory philosophy of "in order to encourage the rich to be more productive it's necessary to give them more money" (which they sit on)
But "in order to encourage the poor to be more productive it's necessary to give them less money" (basically starve them into working for no improvement in their lives other than avoiding starving or being evicted)
Is endorsed.
They haven't "made work pay" at all, as ever it was a damned LIE, they have reduced benefits to the point where people are forced to accept low paid, part time, temporary or zero hours contract jobs, jobs that often offer NO security with less employment rights, pay that is almost as impossible to live on as benefits, which is topped up by in work benefits so that companies like 'certain' supermarket chains can have their massive profits subsidised (now there's that word used accurately) by the "hard working tax payers" who have been conditioned to despise the 'scrounger' on the dole but not the multi-millionaire 'scrounger' in the boardroom.
Apologies for introducing some actual facts here but they show that Duncan Smith has been an abject failure. Under Duncan Smith we have seen:
Record numbers of successful ESA appeals - 136,539 in 2013/14
Record percentage of successful ESA appeals - 44.3% in 2013/14
Waiting times for ESA assessment soaring, with 500,000 extra people stuck in an assessment system that has almost ground to a halt after the childish and public falling out with Atos, the company whose contract had been extended by Duncan Smith's DWP in 2010.
Awarding 2 of the 3 main PIP contracts to a company that were failing re similar assessments for ESA even though Atos were shown to have been dishonest in their tender by the Public Accounts Committee.
Chaos in the new PIP system with people being left for 6 months+ with no help after a rushed pilot scheme.
Under Universal Credit, in spite of substantial extra costs, Duncan Smith has delivered a caseload of less than 0.6% of what he promised it would be.
His back to work flagship scheme, the Work Programme has delivered results varying from very patchy to abysmal with ESA claimants two and a half times less likely to get a job under the WP than if they had received no help. Providers have been accused of creaming and parking by choosing to help the easiest to get into work while largely ignoring the hardest to help.
The number of new entrants to the Access to Work scheme, designed to help disabled people return to or stay in work, dropping by a third.
A lack of transparency. This has been highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee who said that they have consistently found that the DWP are neither transparent nor open. Even when the courts have told the DWP to release documents which will show why Universal Credit has been such a spectacular failure they are refusing to do so.
Another example of a lack of transparency is the DWP's refusal to fully publish figures for ESA reconsiderations. They will now have to produce them after Sheila Gilmore got the UK Statistics Authority on the case.
Duncan Smith's DWP lead the way in criticism from the UK Statistics Authority.
Serial dishonesty, making claims that are contradicted by the actual facts, eg claims that 2.5 million people were left on IB for a decade without being seen, that 50% of DLA claimants had no corroborating medical evidence, that there was a rush to get DLA just before the introduction of PIP, the numbers going back to work because of the benefits cap etc etc
Failure to deliver any progress on reducing overpayments of benefits and tax credits. The figure has actually gone up in spite of the promise that it would be 25% lower by 2014/15.
Benefits spending will actually, by the DWP's own figures, be £20bn higher in 2015 than in 2010. Probably the biggest area of working age spending is Housing Benefit where spending will be £4.6bn pa higher in 2015 than in 2010.
I could go on but I have made my point and showed why Duncan Smith has been such a spectacular failure. Whether it was the IB-ESA migration, the introduction of PIP or Universal Credit he has tried to rush through his welfare reforms. You cannot do that with something as complicated as the welfare system and, unsurprisingly, he has failed dismally with the result being extra costs to the taxpayer and hardship for claimants. He should have concentrated on one area at a time, got that right and then moved onto the next area. In trying to make a name for himself he has failed a whole nation.
Spot on as ever, but be careful you are in danger of committing thought crime by not agreeing with the beloved leader and his version of the truth.
That may be true but Duncan-Smith will next month have presided over 900,000 more people going into work, a staggering effort. If has has had to use the carrot of generous in work benefit to make it worth it, surely for the long term good it is well worth the price.
Each month, the figures confound the predictions of even the most optimistic economists. In last year’s Budget, for example, George Osborne set out an ambitious target of getting 900,000 more people into work by 2018. This figure will now be reached next month.
All this is nothing short of phenomenal: more jobs are being created in Britain than in the rest of Europe put together. And it is also troubling the Bank of England, whose own forecasts have been proved as wrong as everyone else’s. Mark Carney, its governor, said last summer that he would not think about raising interest rates until unemployment fell below 7 per cent – which he expected to take three years. It took six months.
There has clearly been a game-changer, something that none of the economists had incorporated in their models. And senior figures inside the Bank are beginning to conclude (and openly hint) that this is Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms.
The fact that IDS still able to hold onto a job in Government despite being such a monumental failure is all the evidence I need that the entire system is rotten to the core.
In spite of all your vitriol, what Duncan-Smith has achieved in a parliament of such limited growth is surely the biggest achievement in this government, or many before it. The reality is that spending on in work benefits is very generous.
Duncan-Smith has presided over nearly 1 million people going into work, now we can argue how much of that is carrot or stick, with the generous in-work benefit, or forced into it with reduced benefits but the end result is a remarkable success by Duncan-Smith.
What do you mean by 'generous'?
Do you mean it's quite high because of the high cost of living; especially housing, which makes up the bulk of any need for in work benefits?
If so, maybe you can explain why the self same government have borrowed money to pump in to the buying of housing? That will only ever prop up prices and lead to a rise, as we have seen. Somewhat defeatist isn't it?
There are the 250 MPs who voted for it, my Lib Dem MP Lorely Burt is on that list, she's lost my vote for next year, Green Party it is.
However, Solihull is a marginal Lib Dem/Tory seat under the First Past The Post electoral system and the withdrawal of support from Burt could very well help to put in a Tea Party Tory headbanger instead.
The fact that IDS still able to hold onto a job in Government despite being such a monumental failure is all the evidence I need that the entire system is rotten to the core.
perhaps hes threatened them all with committing harikiri but asking them to stand in for him lol
As for Clegg, spineless betraying wimp but but I not sure that if Danny Alexander became leader I wouldnt want to commit it either.....on HIM...hes just a stale greggs cornish pasty, waste of space in every way possible.... Got a massive trash talking gob too...shouldbe filled up with pasties to stop him talking lol
However, Solihull is a marginal Lib Dem/Tory seat under the First Past The Post electoral system and the withdrawal of support from Burt could very well help to put in a Tea Party Tory headbanger instead.
Tbh, I don't think the left wing voters will even care what happens in the Tory/Libdem marginals one bit.
Tbh, I don't think the left wing voters will even care what happens in the Tory/Libdem marginals one bit.
WELL, as of Tuesday, 5 March 2013 the Tories and the lib dems were in danger of losing 19 marginal seats due to the spare room punishment,
because the number of people guilty of spare room crime in those marginal seats are far more numerous than their tiny majorities,
remember that the majorities in the chart are individual voters, whereas the figures for households fined for spare room crime are just that households many, in fact the majority, of those households will have more than one person of voting age living there,
So for example, Thurrock, has a Tory Majority of just 92, and yet it has 1,140 households being fined for spare room crime, as I said, many of those households will have more than one voting age resident living there, I should imagine that a majority of just 92 is as good as gone, even if just half of those being punished by this government vote against it,
and the same goes for all the others on the list, do you think they can afford to lose those seats?
Do you think the people being punished for something they didn't ask for, and is not their fault, will be voting for the government that has imposed this on them?
Do you think that come next May lots of these people won't be made completely aware of just how tiny the governments majority is in their constituency? I am quite certain there will be plenty of people making sure they are WELL aware of it,
Comments
And? would it suit you better if they were called "workandbenefits" or perhaps "dodgingyourtaxesandwork"? what is wrong with people finding out about where they stand when leaving or going back into work? or are you suggesting they are doing something illegal like advice on how to 'fiddle the benefits system'?
ONE quick google search brought up these results,
http://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/guides/30-ways-to-save-tax/ http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1616016/Easy-ways-pay-income-tax.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/six-easy-ways-to-legally-pay-less-tax.html
Imagine the sheer uproar from some of our Tory chums if there was a website called "how to ensure you are getting all the in work benefits you are legally entitled to"
As for the 'agenda' of the site I linked to, please feel free to point out any significant inaccuracies or downright lies in the information they provide,
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2555-could-claimants-choose-the-next-govenment
a recap, Just four, there are lots more in the chart in the link, now, I am not for one minute suggesting that all 7120 working age benefit claimants in North Warwickshire (by the way, a working age benefit claimant is also someone who works 40 hours a week in low paid job,) will turn out and vote Labour, but then 500 would probably be enough,
and the same goes for all the other Tory marginals with a tiny majority, after 5 years of seeing the weakest and the poorest treated like the enemy or criminals, I don't think it's a big leap to expect to see those teeny tiny little majorities evaporate faster than a Lib Dem leaders principles,
Google is your friend, feel free to check independent election results from anywhere you like,
In spite of all your vitriol, what Duncan-Smith has achieved in a parliament of such limited growth is surely the biggest achievement in this government, or many before it. The reality is that spending on in work benefits is very generous.
Duncan-Smith has presided over nearly 1 million people going into work, now we can argue how much of that is carrot or stick, with the generous in-work benefit, or forced into it with reduced benefits but the end result is a remarkable success by Duncan-Smith.
How the government hid 1 million unemployed. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scriptonitedaily.com%2F2013%2F08%2F06%2F1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures%2F&ei=otrIU4K4Co7y7Aav0YGABg&usg=AFQjCNH7krXHDAeYSB2yL8uIgShItm-IJA&bvm=bv.71198958,d.ZGU&cad=rja. One of the simple tricks is if you are on the work programe you are NOT classed as unemployed, even though you are still on JSA. The other thing to remember is yes more people in work than ever before, but the benefit bill is increasing every month, and the government have already admitted the HB bill is going to keep going up
These are real jobs by the way. Work-fare is communistic in concept, work for room/board and nothing for yourself, the "greater good" etc etc.
In-work benefits are also a drain on the economy. A real Conservative would want people to have proper jobs that pay them a decent wage on which they are actually paying in tax...
That may be true but Duncan-Smith will next month have presided over 900,000 more people going into work, a staggering effort. If has has had to use the carrot of generous in work benefit to make it worth it, surely for the long term good it is well worth the price.
Sorry but in work benefits are means tested, so by the nature of means testing cannot be called generous. And alot of it is smoke and mirrors, paying more out in in work benefits is hiding the true state of affairs, we should break the benefit bill down more into smaller groups and rename some of the, if wages are so low that the number of people that fit into the bracket of needing in work benefits to top up low wages is going to keep increasing then these should be called corprate welfare group as more money is being paid to people who work for buisness that have profits not turnover of millions and billions so not paying the workforce enough to live on but giving high returns for shareholders means these buisness are earning vast profits on the backs of tax payers money having to be paid to their workforce
Utter nonsense, most of the newly employed are in small business, where your comment is an irrelevance.
Apologies for introducing some actual facts here but they show that Duncan Smith has been an abject failure. Under Duncan Smith we have seen:
Record numbers of successful ESA appeals - 136,539 in 2013/14
Record percentage of successful ESA appeals - 44.3% in 2013/14
Waiting times for ESA assessment soaring, with 500,000 extra people stuck in an assessment system that has almost ground to a halt after the childish and public falling out with Atos, the company whose contract had been extended by Duncan Smith's DWP in 2010.
Awarding 2 of the 3 main PIP contracts to a company that were failing re similar assessments for ESA even though Atos were shown to have been dishonest in their tender by the Public Accounts Committee.
Chaos in the new PIP system with people being left for 6 months+ with no help after a rushed pilot scheme.
Under Universal Credit, in spite of substantial extra costs, Duncan Smith has delivered a caseload of less than 0.6% of what he promised it would be.
His back to work flagship scheme, the Work Programme has delivered results varying from very patchy to abysmal with ESA claimants two and a half times less likely to get a job under the WP than if they had received no help. Providers have been accused of creaming and parking by choosing to help the easiest to get into work while largely ignoring the hardest to help.
The number of new entrants to the Access to Work scheme, designed to help disabled people return to or stay in work, dropping by a third.
A lack of transparency. This has been highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee who said that they have consistently found that the DWP are neither transparent nor open. Even when the courts have told the DWP to release documents which will show why Universal Credit has been such a spectacular failure they are refusing to do so.
Another example of a lack of transparency is the DWP's refusal to fully publish figures for ESA reconsiderations. They will now have to produce them after Sheila Gilmore got the UK Statistics Authority on the case.
Duncan Smith's DWP lead the way in criticism from the UK Statistics Authority.
Serial dishonesty, making claims that are contradicted by the actual facts, eg claims that 2.5 million people were left on IB for a decade without being seen, that 50% of DLA claimants had no corroborating medical evidence, that there was a rush to get DLA just before the introduction of PIP, the numbers going back to work because of the benefits cap etc etc
Failure to deliver any progress on reducing overpayments of benefits and tax credits. The figure has actually gone up in spite of the promise that it would be 25% lower by 2014/15.
Benefits spending will actually, by the DWP's own figures, be £20bn higher in 2015 than in 2010. Probably the biggest area of working age spending is Housing Benefit where spending will be £4.6bn pa higher in 2015 than in 2010.
I could go on but I have made my point and showed why Duncan Smith has been such a spectacular failure. Whether it was the IB-ESA migration, the introduction of PIP or Universal Credit he has tried to rush through his welfare reforms. You cannot do that with something as complicated as the welfare system and, unsurprisingly, he has failed dismally with the result being extra costs to the taxpayer and hardship for claimants. He should have concentrated on one area at a time, got that right and then moved onto the next area. In trying to make a name for himself he has failed a whole nation.
And we have thousands of people doing this AVON, KLEENEZE OR BETTERWARE?
a catalogue distributors and are classed as self employed, sorry but these are not real jobs
Spend billions on proping up big business with free labour is not Conservatism, it's closer to a socialistic concept.
Where is the help to start business? Where are the real jobs that pay an actual wage from which people will be paying INCOME TAX into the treasury...
Any moron can spend money on non-jobs, Iain Duncan-Smith is that moron.
It hasn't been big business though has it.
ALL benefits have been reduced both in work and out of work benefits, or do you think fining a low paid worker for spare room crime while freezing any in work benefits increases to below inflation rises for three years (a pay cut and a very significant one for the low paid) has actually improved things for the low paid? "generous in work benefits" my exhaust vent, Almost every single low paid worker is hundreds of pounds a year WORSE off since this lot came to power,
While the top tax bracket lot are around a hundred grand a year better off,
We certainly don't need to argue about the ratio of 'carrot to stick' because there has been NO carrot just plenty of stick,
Once again the Tory philosophy of "in order to encourage the rich to be more productive it's necessary to give them more money" (which they sit on)
But "in order to encourage the poor to be more productive it's necessary to give them less money" (basically starve them into working for no improvement in their lives other than avoiding starving or being evicted)
Is endorsed.
They haven't "made work pay" at all, as ever it was a damned LIE, they have reduced benefits to the point where people are forced to accept low paid, part time, temporary or zero hours contract jobs, jobs that often offer NO security with less employment rights, pay that is almost as impossible to live on as benefits, which is topped up by in work benefits so that companies like 'certain' supermarket chains can have their massive profits subsidised (now there's that word used accurately) by the "hard working tax payers" who have been conditioned to despise the 'scrounger' on the dole but not the multi-millionaire 'scrounger' in the boardroom.
Have you read 1984?
Spot on as ever, but be careful you are in danger of committing thought crime by not agreeing with the beloved leader and his version of the truth.
Each month, the figures confound the predictions of even the most optimistic economists. In last year’s Budget, for example, George Osborne set out an ambitious target of getting 900,000 more people into work by 2018. This figure will now be reached next month.
All this is nothing short of phenomenal: more jobs are being created in Britain than in the rest of Europe put together. And it is also troubling the Bank of England, whose own forecasts have been proved as wrong as everyone else’s. Mark Carney, its governor, said last summer that he would not think about raising interest rates until unemployment fell below 7 per cent – which he expected to take three years. It took six months.
There has clearly been a game-changer, something that none of the economists had incorporated in their models. And senior figures inside the Bank are beginning to conclude (and openly hint) that this is Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10973875/Whats-the-secret-behind-our-jobs-miracle-Welfare-reform.html
What do you mean by 'generous'?
Do you mean it's quite high because of the high cost of living; especially housing, which makes up the bulk of any need for in work benefits?
If so, maybe you can explain why the self same government have borrowed money to pump in to the buying of housing? That will only ever prop up prices and lead to a rise, as we have seen. Somewhat defeatist isn't it?
However, Solihull is a marginal Lib Dem/Tory seat under the First Past The Post electoral system and the withdrawal of support from Burt could very well help to put in a Tea Party Tory headbanger instead.
perhaps hes threatened them all with committing harikiri but asking them to stand in for him lol
As for Clegg, spineless betraying wimp but but I not sure that if Danny Alexander became leader I wouldnt want to commit it either.....on HIM...hes just a stale greggs cornish pasty, waste of space in every way possible.... Got a massive trash talking gob too...shouldbe filled up with pasties to stop him talking lol
Tbh, I don't think the left wing voters will even care what happens in the Tory/Libdem marginals one bit.
WELL, as of Tuesday, 5 March 2013 the Tories and the lib dems were in danger of losing 19 marginal seats due to the spare room punishment,
because the number of people guilty of spare room crime in those marginal seats are far more numerous than their tiny majorities,
http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/03/19-government-mps-have-smaller.html
remember that the majorities in the chart are individual voters, whereas the figures for households fined for spare room crime are just that households many, in fact the majority, of those households will have more than one person of voting age living there,
So for example, Thurrock, has a Tory Majority of just 92, and yet it has 1,140 households being fined for spare room crime, as I said, many of those households will have more than one voting age resident living there, I should imagine that a majority of just 92 is as good as gone, even if just half of those being punished by this government vote against it,
and the same goes for all the others on the list, do you think they can afford to lose those seats?
Do you think the people being punished for something they didn't ask for, and is not their fault, will be voting for the government that has imposed this on them?
Do you think that come next May lots of these people won't be made completely aware of just how tiny the governments majority is in their constituency? I am quite certain there will be plenty of people making sure they are WELL aware of it,