Options

Osborne is Britain's favourite politician!!!!!!!

13567

Comments

  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,592
    Forum Member
    CRTHD wrote: »
    Because they have irresponsibly had kids, that they can't afford to pay for themselves, so the rest of us have to bail them out?

    What is the "accepted" income before people can have a family?
    Do you realize just how crass that sounds?
    Are children only the right of rich people?
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    What is the "accepted" income before people can have a family?
    Do you realize just how crass that sounds?
    Are children only the right of rich people?

    Little thing called common sense - there was a time when people avoided having children until they could afford it - now we are in a situation whereby people are having children knowing that if they cannot afford it Nanny State will pick up the tab.

    Further those who are having 5 or 6 children and taking benefits for each one - why did they not stop earlier because the money used to pay for the extra child is taking money from someone else who may actually need it.
  • Options
    stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CRTHD wrote: »
    So how do you qualify for free money?

    It's not only workers with kids who can't afford to live on their wages! Rents are out of control. Besides which, it's not "free", given that I've been paying into it for years.
  • Options
    plateletplatelet Posts: 26,386
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Doesn't surprise me. The economy is growing. He stayed the course. Even when told by Labour we were heading for doom and he needed a plan b he never budged from plan a. And it appears to have worked. So why shouldn't he have a good approval rating? He could have done a lot worse. Yes, not everyone is enjoying the fruits of the recovery.. but at least we have a recovery.

    Indeed when David Cameron scores minus 7; Ed Miliband is on a minus 35; Nick Clegg is on minus 42; and Nigel Farage minus 1. In that respect I think this bit of the article has the ring of truth
    Almost two fifths of those polled – 39 per cent – said that they thought the Conservatives were the team they would most trust to run the economy, compared with only 19 per cent who said Labour.
  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,592
    Forum Member
    Little thing called common sense - there was a time when people avoided having children until they could afford it - now we are in a situation whereby people are having children knowing that if they cannot afford it Nanny State will pick up the tab.

    Further those who are having 5 or 6 children and taking benefits for each one - why did they not stop earlier because the money used to pay for the extra child is taking money from someone else who may actually need it.

    When was this then
    Ah now we get to people on benefits having loads of kids
    Your stock of clichés is never ending
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    When was this then

    Well I am 50 next month and when I was younger such things were a given - you did things when you could afford it.
    Ah now we get to people on benefits having loads of kids

    I was answering the point you raised - it is common sense to do things when you can afford them - it is a question of common sense not rights - and there is no right to have children and it is no more fair to have more than you can afford; neither for the children you have, nor the people whose taxes are paying for them.
    Your stock of clichés is never ending

    Well there are 60,000 families on benefits with 5 or more children so they do exist.

    see http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453766/REVEALED-The-60-000-families-with-5-plus-kids-living-on-benefits
    Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions, released under the Freedom of Information Act, show of 66,580 large families on out-of-work benefits, 13,670 parents claim jobseeker’s allowance and 17,000 claim sickness benefits.
  • Options
    smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Well I am 50 next month and when I was younger such things were a given - you did things when you could afford it.



    I was answering the point you raised - it is common sense to do things when you can afford them - it is a question of common sense not rights - and there is no right to have children and it is no more fair to have more than you can afford; neither for the children you have, nor the people whose taxes are paying for them.



    Well there are 60,000 families on benefits with 5 or more children so they do exist.

    see http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453766/REVEALED-The-60-000-families-with-5-plus-kids-living-on-benefits
    of 66,580 large families on out-of-work benefits, 13,670 parents claim jobseeker’s allowance and 17,000 claim sickness benefits
    .
    What benefits do the other 35,910 families claim?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CRTHD wrote: »
    The boy did good.

    The boy took from the poor & infirm to protect his buddies & his millions. Yeah, great boy.
  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,592
    Forum Member
    Well I am 50 next month and when I was younger such things were a given - you did things when you could afford it.



    I was answering the point you raised - it is common sense to do things when you can afford them - it is a question of common sense not rights - and there is no right to have children and it is no more fair to have more than you can afford; neither for the children you have, nor the people whose taxes are paying for them.



    Well there are 60,000 families on benefits with 5 or more children so they do exist.

    see http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453766/REVEALED-The-60-000-families-with-5-plus-kids-living-on-benefits

    How many of the 60,000 families had jobs when they had children?
    You are fifty now So when exactly was this golden period where people only had children once they could "afford" it?
  • Options
    RichievillaRichievilla Posts: 6,179
    Forum Member
    .
    What benefits do the other 35,910 families claim?

    The FOI request from the Express:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270406/foi-2013-5434.pdf

    Those figures were as at May 2012.

    Another FOI request has the same figures, but as at May 2011:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223241/foi_3222_2012.pdf

    It is interesting to note that there were 39,580, so between May 2011 and 2012 the coalition oversaw a 68% rise. The vast majority on out of work benefits (who have had kids...it doesn't show those with no kids) had 1 or 2 kids.

    The boy took from the poor & infirm to protect his buddies & his millions. Yeah, great boy.

    Indeed, and he lied when claiming that disabled people will be protected from the 2 year benefit freeze when none of those who receive ESA payments will be protected, including the most seriously disabled people. If Duncan Smith has his way after the next election then the Tory Party's favourite targets will be hit even harder.

    It is a sad indictment of our politicians that Osborne is the least hated in this poll.
  • Options
    Pat_SmithPat_Smith Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    Are children only the right of rich people?


    Kinda. Or at least, people with the wherewithal to look after them and not expect the state to take more of a hand than it does.
  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,592
    Forum Member
    Pat_Smith wrote: »
    Kinda. Or at least, people with the wherewithal to look after them and not expect the state to take more of a hand than it does.

    So have you got a figure as to how much money a couple should have before having a child?
  • Options
    tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    Pat_Smith wrote: »
    Kinda. Or at least, people with the wherewithal to look after them and not expect the state to take more of a hand than it does.

    Well the more people working than ever before but more needing housing benefit, Housing benefit claimants in work double

    2 October 2014 | By Kate Youde

    The number of middle-income earners relying on housing benefit to keep their homes has risen by 350,000 since 2008, a report has found.

    Download the National Housing Federation report Broken Market, Broken Dreams

    Download the National Housing Federation report Broken Market, Broken Dreams

    National Housing Federation (NHF) research show that middle-income households earning between £20,000 and £30,000 a year accounted for two-thirds of all new housing benefit claims during the past six years.

    The report, ‘Broken Market, Broken Dreams’, which used data from the Department for Work and Pensions and the English Housing Survey, showed the proportion of households having to claim housing benefit despite being in work has doubled to 22% since 2008. The federation predicts this figure could rise to one in three in the next five years.

    It suggested increasing housing costs were behind the rise in middle-income claimants and also highlighted the impact of years of only building half the number of homes needed, stagnant wages and more people renting privately due to a critical shortage of affordable homes.

    Between November 2008 and May 2014, there were 570,000 new households claiming housing benefit who were also in work, the equivalent of almost 300 households per day. That increase in working claimants accounted for more than three-quarters (79%) of new housing benefit claims made over that time.

    David Orr, chief executive of the NHF, said: ‘Our shortage of affordable housing is now leaving families on a decent wage unable to cover the cost of their homes. This isn’t sustainable or right.

    ‘In the 1970s, around 80% of government housing spend went on building homes with about 20% on housing benefits, but today it’s the other way round. Billions of pounds being spent on housing benefit is just a costly sticking plaster. What we need is a long-term solution to build the affordable homes we need, so that hard working families can support themselves.

    ‘Politicians need to address the problems of the housing market now, and commit to ending the housing crisis for a generation.’
  • Options
    CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Trying to figure out where Ed Balls and Harriet Harman would come in this poll, probably off the scale of unpopulars
  • Options
    MeepersMeepers Posts: 5,502
    Forum Member
    He stood up to the Union and Labour deficit denyers and has shown to right all along. Good that he gets credit
  • Options
    LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    Ironic then that when the IMF was telling Osborne to change course those on the left were shouting the loudest. Now they have turned around and said that Osborne was right then attack the IMF.

    Simple fact is you cannot help the needy in a society or have raising wages without a growing economy. and these things lag anyway.

    And no doubt the excuse after that will another downturn and then things will lag again until the next downturn, and so on.
  • Options
    LenkaLenka Posts: 1,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lyricalis wrote: »
    IMF praising Osborne for doing more to increase the wealth of the already wealthy and attacks the EU for not being in austerity measures that do the same there. I'd damn George to hell if I believed in the place.

    I do not believe for one moment the rich are any richer than before Osborne took over and turned the economy, which was well on it's way to hell in a handcart. Why can people not accept that it is not acceptable to keep spewing rubbish when quite clearly the biggest money lender to nations worldwide congratulates the UK chancellor and encourages other nations to follow suit.

    Accept it, like him or not, indeed like or not this coalition, but they have turned the UK from the basket case it had become under Labour into a state others can only hope to emulate.

    And before anyone starts, I do not care one jot if the entire government went to Eton, Birmingham poly, had no qualification s or were brought up in the sewers, they have had the courage under the most trying hecklers and naysayers to stay the course. The fact remains that I would rather they were in charge than Labour the Nation wreckers.

    Funny how there hasn't been a squeak out of Labour but lots of trolling here.

    Incidentally, I am looking forward to seeing an investigation into the appalling behaviour online by some trolls re Madeleines Parents and am very pleased the authorities are looking into this. It will be interesting if they read some of what I see on the boards.

    What you said above bears no resemblance to the link I posted.
  • Options
    LenkaLenka Posts: 1,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    What a load of rubbish No wonder people are sick of politics if this is the sort of crap that is spewed out and people are meant to accept it
    Millions of people are busting a gut, working long hours and being paid a pittance with tax credits and housing benefit having to be paid because wages are so low
    If you can sit there and seriously say that feeding our money to a corporation to make even more money is sensible then you are out of touch big time

    Oh my word, do you not understand that it is the Private sector which funds the State sector.

    In what Utopia can we not invest to raise money which in turn must pay for this bellyaching midwife?

    Surely you can see that all workers in the Private sector and the State sector have suffered under the austerity measures.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    Lyricalis wrote: »
    And no doubt the excuse after that will another downturn and then things will lag again until the next downturn, and so on.

    Well in September 2014 real term wages rose by 1.9% through August compared with a CPI inflation figure of 1.5 per cent for the period. Advertised salaries rose to an average of £34,463 last month, up 1.9 per cent from £33,873 in August last year
  • Options
    LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    Well in September 2014 real term wages rose by 1.9% through August compared with a CPI inflation figure of 1.5 per cent for the period. Advertised salaries rose to an average of £34,463 last month, up 1.9 per cent from £33,873 in August last year

    So still far lower than the cost of living is rising then.
  • Options
    plateletplatelet Posts: 26,386
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Caxton wrote: »
    Trying to figure out where Ed Balls and Harriet Harman would come in this poll, probably off the scale of unpopulars

    They were not included

    poll data
  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,592
    Forum Member
    Lenka wrote: »
    Oh my word, do you not understand that it is the Private sector which funds the State sector.

    In what Utopia can we not invest to raise money which in turn must pay for this bellyaching midwife?

    Surely you can see that all workers in the Private sector and the State sector have suffered under the austerity measures.

    Thought it was the midwife who eased the bellyaching
    So in your view everybody should just grin and bear it whilst those at the top who caused the bloody shambles in the first place continue along their merry way Not much of a plan really
  • Options
    LenkaLenka Posts: 1,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    Thought it was the midwife who eased the bellyaching
    So in your view everybody should just grin and bear it whilst those at the top who caused the bloody shambles in the first place continue along their merry way Not much of a plan really

    You missed the point, everyone has suffered the austerity measures, it was your singling out of midwives that made it one dimensional.
  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,592
    Forum Member
    Lenka wrote: »
    You missed the point, everyone has suffered the austerity measures, it was your singling out of midwives that made it one dimensional.

    Some a lot more than others or do you swallow "We're all in it together" nonsense?
    Mentioned the midwives because they are being refused a 1% pay rise
  • Options
    AndyCopenAndyCopen Posts: 2,213
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    are they 1% more efficient ?, or do we just pay people on thier vauge emotive function ?
Sign In or Register to comment.