Sorry, I must disagree here. If you take into account the "ex-tories", you will find around the numbers are far higher.
UKIP has stolen a large chunk of OAPS from the tories in the last few months.
Evening Preston. You are, as always, correct. I was simply pointing out the numbers that "vote Tory". I believe if this was Twitter the hashtag would be #pedant.
Just seen George Osboune give his speech at Morrisons on Sky News, in the background a couple of staff looked as though they wished he would vaporize.
I watched his speech earlier and the 2 main things that struck me were 1) He kept banging on about benefits paid to non-workers yet failed to mention that more benefits are paid to those in work than not working, and 2) the spare room subsidy being unfair on taxpayers yet no mention of taxpayers subsidising MP's to have more than one bed flats as a 2nd home.
Evening Preston. You are, as always, correct. I was simply pointing out the numbers that "vote Tory". I believe if this was Twitter the hashtag would be #pedant.
I understood your question aimed at old rich. You were correct that yougov wouldn't be trying to outrage people with age groupings. It's easy to miss that the Tories actually are for the older generation. Possibly why Cameron is desperate to modernise as they can't rely on old Christians for ever (sorry for the stereotype )
I watched his speech earlier and the 2 main things that struck me were 1) He kept banging on about benefits paid to non-workers yet failed to mention that more benefits are paid to those in work than not working, and 2) the spare room subsidy being unfair on taxpayers yet no mention of taxpayers subsidising MP's to have more than one bed flats as a 2nd home.
Yes that was really weird you wouild have thought he might mention in work benefits at morrisons.:D
And yes no mention also of spare rooms in second homes for MPs at taxpayer expense, this was really a shocker for me that this was not in his speech.Whoever wrote it ought to be sacked at once.:D
How does this change the fact that IDS couldn't live on£53pw in any shape or form?
Why should he?
He has worked hard to get in position where he contributes to society and has a successful career and the remuneration that comes with that.
How about the union bosses sending their members out on strike about final salary pensions live on the basic state pension for a year? That would involve Bob Crowe dropping from £150,000 a year to £5,000.
And, IDS was unemployed, living on the dole, when he left the army so the 'he doesn't know what it is like' isn't 100% accurate here is it?
He has worked hard to get in position where he contributes to society and has a successful career and the remuneration that comes with that.
How about the union bosses sending their members out on strike about final salary pensions live on the basic state pension for a year? That would involve Bob Crowe dropping from £150,000 a year to £5,000.
And, IDS was unemployed, living on the dole, when he left the army so the 'he doesn't know what it is like' isn't 100% accurate here is it?
He has worked hard to get in position where he contributes to society and has a successful career and the remuneration that comes with that.
How about the union bosses sending their members out on strike about final salary pensions live on the basic state pension for a year? That would involve Bob Crowe dropping from £150,000 a year to £5,000.
And, IDS was unemployed, living on the dole, when he left the army so the 'he doesn't know what it is like' isn't 100% accurate here is it?
He was a bag carrier for the brass in the army and married in to money. There is a history of his 'achievements' online somewhere, complete with his lies on his cv about his education attainments. The man's a compulsive liar as evidenced in the past and his current job. No decent employer would touch him with a barge pole.
But the lowest amount of benefits for someone who is unemployed is £56.25 a week, so not that dissimilar. It doesn't really matter if the caller is lying (even though I don't think he is). Some people are expected to live on such a small amount which, after paying council tax and extra rent for those who are affected by the HB reduction, will be even less than £53/week to cover all other bills, food, and job seeking expenses.
No he admitted to it in the article I have quoted.
Mr Bennett had described himself on his Twitter profile as a “poker player, self employed ducker and diver”, but on Monday it was changed to “market trader”. He did however admit he was still placing the occasional bet on horse racing, claiming it was nobody else’s business what he did with his spare money.
His other comment were in quotes yet strangely, the betting on the horses isn't. Any idea why that might be?
He has worked hard to get in position where he contributes to society and has a successful career and the remuneration that comes with that.
How about the union bosses sending their members out on strike about final salary pensions live on the basic state pension for a year? That would involve Bob Crowe dropping from £150,000 a year to £5,000.
And, IDS was unemployed, living on the dole, when he left the army so the 'he doesn't know what it is like' isn't 100% accurate here is it?
Why should he? Because there's that overused but true statement that not everybody can be a lawyer,Dr or an mp. Somebody has to do the vital but low paying jobs, or else the country would come to a standstill.
Where would he be if there was nobody to empty his bins stack the shelves in the shops, look after him when he goes to hospital etc etc?
Mr Bennett had described himself on his Twitter profile as a “poker player, self employed ducker and diver”, but on Monday it was changed to “market trader”. He did however admit he was still placing the occasional bet on horse racing, claiming it was nobody else’s business what he did with his spare money.
His other comment were in quotes yet strangely, the betting on the horses isn't. Any idea why that might be?
Well I don't think the Telegraph interviewed him so probably just repeating something that may, or may not, have been said? It seems odd so much of the conversation about what he and smith said is in quotes but not that.
Why should he? Because there's that overused but true statement that not everybody can be a lawyer,Dr or an mp. Somebody has to do the vital but low paying jobs, or else the country would come to a standstill.
Where would he be if there was nobody to empty his bins stack the shelves in the shops, look after him when he goes to hospital etc etc?
Well perhaps we should look at Tony Blairs previous governments aim.
Thanks to Blair and his ludicrous aim of getting 50% of school leavers into university we have a semi-literate student population most of whom should never be there. Reduce the numbers to 1960's levels (10% of school leavers?).
Then perhaps instead of every student in the UK wanting to go to university, and only take the best, perhaps student fees can be scrapped? :rolleyes:
University was once for those of a high intellect with the maturity to want to further their education.
There are too many universities offering mediocre courses, some of them are no more than jumped up technology colleges.
So now we have young people, who have finished a university course, who think they should step straight into a job at a pretty senior level, despite the fact they have no experience.
I agree with you, not everybody can be a Dr,Lawyer or the next Warren Buffet.
But I still don't see why IDS should prove he can live on £53 a week. After all, benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice!
But I still don't see why IDS should prove he can live on £53 a week. After all, benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice!
That's a simple one when a person produces three thin pieces of string and calls it a safety net the onus should be on them to prove the net actually works.
That's a simple one when a person produces three thin pieces of string and calls it a safety net the onus should be on them to prove the net actually works.
Comments
Evening Preston. You are, as always, correct. I was simply pointing out the numbers that "vote Tory". I believe if this was Twitter the hashtag would be #pedant.
I watched his speech earlier and the 2 main things that struck me were 1) He kept banging on about benefits paid to non-workers yet failed to mention that more benefits are paid to those in work than not working, and 2) the spare room subsidy being unfair on taxpayers yet no mention of taxpayers subsidising MP's to have more than one bed flats as a 2nd home.
I understood your question aimed at old rich. You were correct that yougov wouldn't be trying to outrage people with age groupings. It's easy to miss that the Tories actually are for the older generation. Possibly why Cameron is desperate to modernise as they can't rely on old Christians for ever (sorry for the stereotype )
Yes that was really weird you wouild have thought he might mention in work benefits at morrisons.:D
And yes no mention also of spare rooms in second homes for MPs at taxpayer expense, this was really a shocker for me that this was not in his speech.Whoever wrote it ought to be sacked at once.:D
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9968031/IDS-challenged-to-live-on-53-a-week-by-man-who-gets-156.html
How does this change the fact that IDS couldn't live on£53pw in any shape or form?
Well lets start with the whole argument was based on the BBC asking IDS a question from a caller, who was lying.
Why should he?
He has worked hard to get in position where he contributes to society and has a successful career and the remuneration that comes with that.
How about the union bosses sending their members out on strike about final salary pensions live on the basic state pension for a year? That would involve Bob Crowe dropping from £150,000 a year to £5,000.
And, IDS was unemployed, living on the dole, when he left the army so the 'he doesn't know what it is like' isn't 100% accurate here is it?
Didn't he say he has £53 left after his rent/council tax to live on?
Excellent post.
He was a bag carrier for the brass in the army and married in to money. There is a history of his 'achievements' online somewhere, complete with his lies on his cv about his education attainments. The man's a compulsive liar as evidenced in the past and his current job. No decent employer would touch him with a barge pole.
Wasn't that a media assumption based on a 'like' or something on his twitter?
But the lowest amount of benefits for someone who is unemployed is £56.25 a week, so not that dissimilar. It doesn't really matter if the caller is lying (even though I don't think he is). Some people are expected to live on such a small amount which, after paying council tax and extra rent for those who are affected by the HB reduction, will be even less than £53/week to cover all other bills, food, and job seeking expenses.
Mr Bennett had described himself on his Twitter profile as a “poker player, self employed ducker and diver”, but on Monday it was changed to “market trader”. He did however admit he was still placing the occasional bet on horse racing, claiming it was nobody else’s business what he did with his spare money.
His other comment were in quotes yet strangely, the betting on the horses isn't. Any idea why that might be?
Why should he? Because there's that overused but true statement that not everybody can be a lawyer,Dr or an mp. Somebody has to do the vital but low paying jobs, or else the country would come to a standstill.
Where would he be if there was nobody to empty his bins stack the shelves in the shops, look after him when he goes to hospital etc etc?
No, no idea, is the Telegraph lying?
Well I don't think the Telegraph interviewed him so probably just repeating something that may, or may not, have been said? It seems odd so much of the conversation about what he and smith said is in quotes but not that.
Well perhaps we should look at Tony Blairs previous governments aim.
Thanks to Blair and his ludicrous aim of getting 50% of school leavers into university we have a semi-literate student population most of whom should never be there. Reduce the numbers to 1960's levels (10% of school leavers?).
Then perhaps instead of every student in the UK wanting to go to university, and only take the best, perhaps student fees can be scrapped? :rolleyes:
University was once for those of a high intellect with the maturity to want to further their education.
There are too many universities offering mediocre courses, some of them are no more than jumped up technology colleges.
So now we have young people, who have finished a university course, who think they should step straight into a job at a pretty senior level, despite the fact they have no experience.
I agree with you, not everybody can be a Dr,Lawyer or the next Warren Buffet.
But I still don't see why IDS should prove he can live on £53 a week. After all, benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice!
That's a simple one when a person produces three thin pieces of string and calls it a safety net the onus should be on them to prove the net actually works.
It does work.
So he'd have no problem then.
no, and to ask him personally to do it is absurd. The question should be, is it acceptable to allow someone in society to live off that amount.