If the cuts were equal across the board I would no reason to complain. For the people saying I can never be postive here is one part. The 24+ Gov loan is a great idea.
You might not by I would. This is a wealthy country and if we choose to we can afford to provide for vulnerable people. Spending needs to be controlled of course, but it doesn't need to be slashed in order to achieve an arbitrary target which will inevitably be missed anyway. Osbourne is driven by a dogma akmost no independant economist shares.
Watching the 1st episode in the series about President Obama's term of office, encapsulated the different attitudes of right and left wing politics [or in the case of the USA, very right wing and centre politics]. Obama knew that he'd inherited the USA in a bit of a downturn. What Bush had been hiding from the people was a recession so deep that it rivalled the Great Depression before WWII. So what did Obama do? He set aside his personal goals for a year or so [e.g. fair health care for all, etc..] and tackled the recession by throwing a huge stimulus to the economy in the form of US$800B. What happened? The USA came flying out of the recession within 18 months and although there was pain for the people, it was minimised. Yet they had to convince 2 to 3 Republicans senators to come on board when they had been instructed to reject the proposal. If that hadn't gone ahead the world would possibly still be climbing out of the doldrums. As it happened several of the usual western countries [GB included] applied austerity politics and took several years longer, with a lot of pain and anguish to the poorest and those with mortgages. Dogma politics. Good 1st episode if anyone wants to see it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07470xw/inside-obamas-white-house-1-100-days
I thought I'd be very pleased to reach 65 and claim my state pension, to supplement my works pension I saved for, but if I read the newspapers or listen to the radio then I'm the beneficiary of a triple lock that means my benefits are better than those of working age. Am I supposed to feel guilty? Give my heating allowance back? Cut up my bus pass? Look a bit further at the baby boomers, the first generation to get into their 60s and find themselves caring for their parents (mine are 102 and 97). My wife's mother is 85 and requires care as well. We've managed to support both our children onto the housing ladder both in terms of finance and child care so they and their partners can work. The long term plan is to down size and may be help the grand kids through university should they go and I expect if we need care in the future we will have to pay for it. I do not begrudge any of the above. Neither my wife or I come from a wealthy of middle class background, but we were well educated for free. No I don't feel guilty just a smidgen peed off.
Don't even feel remotely guilty about how you've managed your life. Plenty have had the same advantages and done better or worse through hard work or chance circumstance.
Although I believe IDS' comments are more to do with his desire for Brexit, than his suddenly finding a conscience, it was interesting to read his comments about the attack on Welfare money being because "they don't vote for us". What next? We're running the NHS down because it's only the poor that need it, and they don't vote for us. Most/all top Tories, and their kin, will be on BUPA, so don't need the NHS (save for the emergency service). Or, we're destroying social housing stock, because only the poor need it, and they don't vote for us. Most/all top Tories will have more than one residence and many are landlords, and certainly don't need social housing. Or, we're destroying unions and workers rights because only the poor need them, and they don't vote for us. Most/many top Tories are employers, or work for big business, where reducing job security, seems to be par for the course. Note I say top Tories, the ones that drive policy, and are in a position to drive the changes through.
That would be fine if only 'top Tories' voted Conservative but they don't. If it was then they wouldn't have won the election. I would guess the majority of their voters are just your average people who at least use the NHS. It would be naïve of the Conservatives to think this way (if they do) as people from all walks of life may vote for them at some point. This is proved by the fact that some of their MP's come from poorer backgrounds. Note I say some before you all start jumping up and down. The only way to be elected with a majority is to be in the middle ground so you appeal to a wide section of people. This is why Jeremy Corbin will struggle as he is too left. As for IDS I don't believe he has had a change of heart. He was a top cabinet member and was well aware of what was planned. He also would have been aware that they were having a rethink so there was no need for him to resign. As you say it's Brexit which is probably the real reason. Now he's a back bencher he can say what he likes whereas as a cabinet member in the House of Commons his hands were tied. He'll probably turn up in Parliament in one of those stupid 'Go' ties now.
There was a long period in recent history when all three of the major parties were commited to the welfare state, the NHS, public housing, etc. More council homes were built in Tory PM Harold MacMillan's watch than under any other govt, conservative or Labour. When David Cameron describes himself as a "one nation" conservative, that is the tradition he is referring too. I don't doubt Cameron is an essentially decent man who doesn't wake up in the morning wondering about the best way to punish vulnerable people; unfortunately that basic decency doesn't square with George Osbourne's obsession with shrinking the state. The free market left to it's own devices is has a poor record of providing for the needs of the many rather than the greed of the few. Markets need to be regulated, taxes need to be collected, and government - both local and national - has an invaluable role to play in ensuring that the wealth generated by the economy in it's various cycles benefits everyone.
http://yournewswire.com/worlds-poorest-president-urges-public-to-kick-the-wealthy-out-of-politics/ Interesting take on how a wealthy person's view of life can skew decision making.
An estimated 9,000 people died last winter in England and Wales as a result of living in a cold home, a university study has suggested. It found a fifth of the 43,900 excess winter deaths in 2014-2015 were caused by low indoor temperatures, BBC Panorama has learned. Cold homes increase the risk of respiratory infections, heart attacks and strokes, the researchers said. Ministers say £1m has been invested to help those who are ill from cold homes. 'Entirely preventable' The University College London (UCL) study calculated that 9,000 deaths was the highest number for 15 years. Each year, the Office for National Statistics calculates the number of additional deaths which take place in winter, caused by interrelated issues, including falls, viruses which are more prevalent in winter and cold indoor temperatures bringing on or exacerbating illness. Researchers took those statistics and the English Housing Survey, which collects information about the condition and energy efficiency of housing, and extrapolated the number of deaths occurring in the coldest homes. Dr Jessica Allen, whose team conducted the study, told BBC Panorama: "This was not the coldest winter on record. People dying from cold homes are a result of high fuel prices, low incomes and poor insulation. It's entirely preventable. "If that was an epidemic of some disease there would quite rightly be people marching in the streets and causing an outrage, but this is because of the cold." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35862763 Accounts of a few families: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35834733 Link to iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0756g0x On BBC 1 now. **** it is depressing.
I take your point on the voters, but just feel the steps are being taken to bring about what I mentioned. Social housing is being sold off, again. Workers rights and unions are being squeezed. NHS - was it last year that the Government were talking about introducing a law (some sort of North Atlantic Treaty?), that would stipulate that any part of the NHS, privatised by American companies, could not be renationalised, without the British Government being heavily sued? Why consider such a treaty, if there is no intention of privatising? I am in my early 60s and believe I am part of that "lucky" generation that benefitted from decent wages and job stability and security, enabling me to buy my own home, but I haven't lost track of my early years, when things weren't so easy, especially for my parents who needed social housing to start moving away from over charging landlords. I can see things going full circle, back to the days when job security didn't exist (zero contracts and weakened unions), loss of social housing, pushing people back into the arms of slum landlords and potentially paying for health care, with or without insurance that they cannot afford. Sorry if I come across as dogmatic, but I genuinely fear for the working class, in coming years, including the ones who think they are Tories.
Mujica is an extraordinary politician, who i first read about when researching changes to drug legislation. I wondered if Corbyn would be like him, but he doesn't have the strength of personality or conviction. It's interesting that when Politicians get pay rises the arguments are that if they don't earn a salary in-line with a director of a private firm that we would lose these people to other industry.
Oh dear........when I read this thread it really is depressing. The reason seems to me to be on the one side of the coin you have those that want to spend money we haven't got. On the other side of the coin are those that say we have over spent so have to cut back. Idealistic responses versus realistic responses perhaps? Whatever your leaning none of you have been able to suggest an alternative. Corbyne certainly hasn't suggested an alternative other than spend more money and put the country into more debt. Also during the election campaign did they not say that they too were going to have to cut some benefits to the welfare system? Oh sorry it might have been they were going to have to make changes to the system! Oh yeah typical disguise talk of a political party. At least the Tories told you what they would have to do. We as a country agreed with them and voted them in! All sides agree on one thing it seems......and that is something has got to be done. The difference being what to do about it. Neither wants to go down the political suicide route of raising taxes or other contributions. The reality is though is there any other way?
I don't agree with a lot of what you say but I have never understood why successive Governments have not built more social housing to replace the ones sold off. I also don't think they should have been sold but then I don't think people should be able to live in social housing once they are earning enough to either rent normally or buy. It blocks the way for someone who genuinely needs it and just adds to waiting lists. I remember there was a top union boss earning over £100k and he couldn't see why it was wrong for him to live in subsidised housing. At least the NHS dentists are back now. They disappeared for a while and you couldn't find one for love or money. It's not all doom and gloom...although I hate going to the dentist so maybe that's not a good thing. Privatising the NHS would be political suicide and I just can't see it happening. Sections may be done by private firms for the NHS but patients aren't having to pay. As long as it's remains free to patients that is what matters.
I think the idea is not about privatising the NHS but about getting the private firms to run them. For whatever reason they seem to be better at than the government bods!
The answer maybe because the government would prefer you to own your own home. These days you can get a hefty grant towards your deposit. So I'm guessing by doing this they are trying to get young people on to the housing ladder rather than build the social housing.
A lot of the reason is that you can't (or at least it's very difficult to) sack poor workers in the public sector.
