In truth though it is a double whammy.......the people on tax credits are as you say mainly on the minimum wage or thereabouts...........and who do they work for mostly? People who care for others (care agency work) mainly paid for indirectly by the government. Nhs porters and cleaners and other workers. ( Not doctors or nurses ) not forgetting other government sponsored workers. All on or very near the minimum wage. To my mind it doesn't make sense although I understand why these people need help. The government dictate the amount they will pay for this care etc then wonder why people in the industry need tax credits.
And on top of that you have the vast amount of people, a large percentage of them immigrants, who work on the minimum wage as carers and nurses in private nursing homes. The warehousing of the old and infirm, which will one day account for most of the members of this forum, is big business nowadays, thanks to deregulation, and most of the money comes from the patients own savings, or from the sale of their own houses. There are several big nursing homes near where I live, and they all have vastly overworked staff, usually one nurse and 2 unqualified carers to about 30-35 patients, and each patient is paying around £300-£400 per week. If it were not for immigrants from Eastern Europe and Asia these places would not function at all. And the tax credits, if the carers even know they are entitled to them, give the shareholders who own these places an excuse to pay the pittances the carers get.
You are right. There is a difference. The comment to Dave was in the same league as the "who are you" comment to big J the other day. It could (and should) have been laughed off. Cameron's comments were those of the playground bully, and for once I thought Corbyn handled it with dignity.
Not a particularly Political animal myself, but have just received a disturbing letter from my local surgery, pointing out that their funding is being severely cut and this will lead to a reduction in the quality of service that they can afford, the NHS seems to be "safe" in the Tory hands? They are more interested in sartorial elegance than the future of our health it would appear. As for the EU I am more for in than out, but can be persuaded.
Most shopworkers are on minimum wage as are people in restaurants. Any primary school teacher would not accepted the behaviour we witnessed at PMQ yesterday. The whole class would have been told to put their hands on their heads and to sit silently until they have learned to behave and they would have missed playtime. Cameron's behaviour in particular was shameful in the extreme.
I was invited to a debate on the EU by my local MP, it is going to feature both sides of the argument and an independent expert will be present. Two events, both holding 450, sold out within a few days, unfortunately I wasn't quick enough.
Why has it taken until one day before the deadline for the government to apply for EU aid to help those in Cumbria and other affected areas? If I wanted to be cynical, I would say that they didn't want to be requesting aid and granted funding during Cameron's negotiations with the EU. A shame because this will probably be swamped and caught beneath the wider EU debate at current.
Or it will be used by the stay campaign to go "look what the EU did for us". Even though it is a bit too late.
How about we have a few weeks of debate and then a poll later on when most have had chance to view and discuss?
Not really sure how you can criticise the stay campaign for the leave campaigners not pushing for access to the EU Flooding Fund. It only hadn't happened sooner, because the government didn't push for it officially. Strange...
I didn't say the out campaign were blameless. I said it was a good bit of PR to use to stay in. It doesn't say who in the government were blocked it does it? So as one part of the Tories is in and the other out both are to blame.
I would suggest that the majority of people, buying the Sun, would be considered to be from traditional, working class backgrounds. With Rupert Murdoch as it's owner, directing the paper to back the Conservative point of view, there is a very great possibility that people, who would traditionally vote for Labour are already being "persuaded" to vote/back him/the Tories, based on the rhetoric they read on a daily basis. So, when Murdoch decides in or out, he will use his media outlets to push his readers/listeners/viewers in the direction he wants them to go, and the more something gets repeated, the more it will be believed as true - just like the oft repeated "fact" that the Labour Party caused the 2008 financial crisis. Even George Osborne's Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, is on record as saying this was caused by the banks, but hey.
To be fair, my mum - a lifelong labour supporter - would have said the same thing (about putting a tie on etc).
I think a lot of people think it. PMQ's did quieten down for a bit when JC first started but now both sides are back to the barracking. Anyway JC doesn't seem bothered. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35660634
BBC are out to get what is best for BBC. It's why you need to look at various sources to look at the big picture.
