• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brits Budget

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BBC reported today that it was a memo led by Simon Hughes - a "warning shot across the bows" that their support could not be taken for granted.

Yes, well I think they are certainly in danger of losing their usual voter base. This could well be the thing that finishes them off as a party if they are not careful.

The two things they got in the budget were the increase in personal tax allowance and the increase in Capital gains tax - yes that was something. I think the talking would have been a bit different too.

However, not much was really said and more is creeping through all the time. It wasn't just VAT that had Simon Hughes concerned.

Hughes issued a blunt warning to the Tories that the government would break up if key pensioner benefits in the coalition agreement were cut. He launched the most significant intervention since the formation of the coalition in the debate that followed George Osborne's emergency budget on Tuesday when the chancellor of the exchequer said that welfare would bear the brunt of cuts.

Although Hughes, the veteran Lib Dem MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, said he supported harsh budget measures to help deal with Britain's weak public finances, he indicated that he was prepared to table rebel amendments to promote fairness. "If there are measures in the finance bill where we can improve fairness, and make for a fairer Britain, then we will come forward with amendments to do that because that is where we make the difference," he said.

Budget cuts: top Lib Dems fire warning to Tories | UK news | The Guardian

I haven't come across yet what the Conservatives might have in mind for pensioners. At the moment, apparently the government is intending a third cut in welfare spending. £60 billion is spent on pensions which are supposed to be seeing rises. So that cut will need to be found out of the rest. I understand the amount is around £192 billion, if you take of the £60b for pensions, £132b. However the cut has to be over the whole £192b but not touch the £60b for pensions.

That looks like the amount spent on Jobseekers allowance, incapacity benefit and disability living allowance must be about halved.

In a situation where unemployment is going to be rising sharply, people are going to be scraping an existence. I believe we are seeing the end of the welfare State, apart from Health and Education maybe I should have even removed education from that as their is talk of scrapping free school meals to pay for the new 'Free Schools'.
 
Last edited:

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You've got to look after the old people. This is just a cliche to the trendy types, but the OAPS did the likes of fighting wars for us and paying into the tax pot all their lives. You can't force them to choose between dying of cold or hunger in the winter as a reward.


'DOLE IS CUSHY' - says bloke actually on it!

But things do have to be cut. You can't go on throwing money about like Jack The Lad, especially nowadays. And as someone on the dole himself I can say there are indeed room for cuts.

Those louts you see hanging around the precincts, their pockets loaded with scratchcards and fags, their bodies dosed up on Red Bull and Special Brew, placentas heaving with more chavvy unborn, can be the first to have their benefits chopped. They don't pay rent or tax and they have only the utility bills, SKY TV and their 'grocery' shopping to think about.

People with mortgages can really feel the pinch though, so it's not unreasonable to expect to be called into the dole office and have said 'Ah Mr. RoP, we're going to have to cut your money a bit today to help those who need a bit more.' The country has a mountain of Labour debt and I consider myself extremely lucky to be on any kind of opulent assistance.


Alright, I don't drive so some money's freed up, but I don't pay rent and tax either. Which is how I've somehow managed to do other things like save up a lot, keep the freezers stocked to bursting, enjoy dates plus buy a steady stream of musical instruments and recording gear, things I shouldn't really have the money for. I literally don't worry at all and so that means that some of us get a bit more money than is morally right in time of austerity.

(I wouldn't want it stopped altogether though, but it gives a lie to the assumption that everyone on it struggles to cope and that only a job gives you real financial security these days. I'm having fun but it's on my conscience, so it certainly wouldn't hurt me to get a bit less so long as I can still get by.)
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok so you somehow are getting too much money but don't try to pretend that people are smoking cigarettes at £6 per pack or £42 per week or getting drunk on whatever special brew costs on the dole.

If you are, then you are getting money some other way.

People currently receive around £65 on dole if over 25, around £51 if under. Income support for incapacity is around £90 and disability living allowance which people tell me is extremely difficult to get, is between £15 and not sure of the highest rate, maybe £30 or £45.

However I agree with you that people who fall into these categories, the unemployed, the sick and the disabled, appear to be being seen somewhat as non people and how they are treated does not matter. They are the people who will in the main pay for the Global depression they had no hand in creating.

Lets look at a few facts. The dole was always intended to be short term. It was set up when there was a commitment to full employment.

It was not intended to deal just with absolute poverty which means you do not have enough money to survive but relative poverty. In other words to give people the ability to, to some extent remain a part of society. In reality the dole has in real terms gone down considerably since the 80's.

Housing Benefit. I am in agreement that its not right for people to be claiming housing benefit which allows them to afford far better accommodation than people who are looking after themselves. However if we deal with London. I remember when I was living there in the 80's and Thatcher was selling council houses, we wondered how people like the rubbish collector's and other low paid people would be able to afford somewhere to live in Central London. It appears this was sorted out by people renting accommodation and getting housing benefit to cover the high prices. These people will now need to move disrupting possibly their work and almost certainly their children's education. Shelter believe it will increase the homelessness and create ghettos in the suburbs. We will need to wait and see but such situations usually create problems. IMO would have been better not to sell council houses so that those on low income could get rented accommodation at a price they can afford.

Next, Jobseekers allowance will be worth 2.5% less due to VAT and some people believe that with it's linkage it may actually go down. In addition there will be plenty more people unemployed through no fault of their own. If any of them happen to still be unemployed after 1 year they will lose 10% of their housing benefit. On a flat that costs £280 per week, that will be £28 per week, leaving them only £37 per week for food, heating, lighting, water, phone, tv licence, bus fares to apply for jobs, clothes etc, etc. This will not add up and will cause severe problems and almost certainly social disruption. We will need soup kitchens.

At a time when people will be falling on the dole queue through no fault of their own when jobs are not available even for those who want them, to cut benefits to a point where they will not even have enough money to stave off absolute poverty is not a good thing.

Like I said, looks like we are no longer a welfare state. Wonder how we will enjoy living with the consequences.

(my figures are rough from what I can remember reading!)
 
Last edited:

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The dole is well over £100 a week. And considering any money on top pays your rent (if you ask after it), there is leftover cash for your bills if you're not a hog or subscribing with Npower. There's certainly enough for the lip-ringed youths who stand on street corners swearing all day and night to afford blingmobiles and cheap lager as they blag what they can. That is the truth.


The dole was, as you say, supposed to be a safety net to stop people starving. But some people do struggle whilst others find it a breeze. Which is why I said it would be reasonable for some to have theirs pruned a little to make savings, as well as help a few others who actually need it. (And if I'd be a victim too, then so be it, just so long as the louts feel the pinch and all.)

There are quite nice benefits, which should be enjoyed until they're equalised because I didn't ask to be made redundant. The longer the fat benefits have lasted for a growing number of us, the worse the contribution to the hole in the nation's pocket. Mind, I don't boast about it but on the other hand many of us wouldn't be true victims of the government when the pruning starts.
 
Last edited:

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
HOWEVER, I will concede to one thing: Why should any decent person on benefits face a cut when our great and good won't tighten their belts themselves?


Greedy sods demand WE go without!!!.jpg

SUN: Friday June 25.



All in all, though, my greatest worry of all is a predicted 'credit crunch crimewave', where more and more thugs will use 'poverty' as an excuse to try and kick my head in and then steal my video.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The dole is well over £100 a week.


Not according to the governments own website.

Effective from April 2009
Contribution based
Personal Allowance
£50.95 16 - 24
£64.30 25 or over
The conditions for contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance are based on National Insurance Contributions you have paid from previous tax years.
A personal allowance of contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance will be payable for 182 days irrespective of capital or your partner's income.
The personal allowance will be the same rate as that for Income Support.
There will be no Adult Dependency Increases.
Rates of Jobseeker's Allowance
Income based
Personal Allowance
£50.95 16 - 24
£64.30 25 or over

Jobseeker's Allowance - general information - Social Security Agency
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's only what the government says. I can go one better by publishing what I say... or at least 'Exhibit A' from Canterbury's very own layabout incubation unit:


SORTED for gutrot 'n' scratchcards!.jpg



I honestly can't explain the difference in the figures but I know what I'm given, so scissors cut paper I'm afraid. Maybe they were just impressed with the old swagger at the dole interview and gave me more out of sheer respect!

At the end of the day I still maintain that with the benefits you're given when unemployed (including housing benefit when eligible), even with the dole at the levels you quote you can still live quite well. Just do what unemployed people always did and don't make dinners big enough for leftovers, use your utilities responsibly and don't go on shopping crawls. (Helps if you're single though, but that just takes us back to my point of examining individual criteria to get a better balance without spending more on the dole budget.)


_____________________________


And did you know you can't even return your benefit (though who would)?!

I remember reading an article, unfindable in the few minutes' editing time left, where a woman tried to return her husband's disability benefit because he got well. She said it was down to faith in God answering her prayers, but the bloke said she had to keep her husband's bad back money anyway - because 'God' wasn't on the ticklist of reasons to rescind benefit!!

Typical Civil Service - the only honest person in the land wanting to give money back and they don't take it!
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's what the government says. I can go one better by publishing what I say... or at least 'Exhibit A' from Canturbury's very own layabout incubation unit:


View attachment 67111964



I honestly can't explain the difference in the figures but I know what I'm given, so scissors cut paper I'm afraid. Maybe they were just impressed with the old swagger at the dole interview and gave me more out of sheer respect!

At the end of the day I still maintain that with the benefits you're given when unemployed (including housing benefit when eligible), even with the dole at the levels you quote you can still live quite well. Just do what unemployed people always did and eat all your leftovers, use your utilities responsibly and don't go on shopping crawls.

You must be receiving some other benefit. Possibly sick but £51 for under 25's and £65 for over 25's is the rate. It s hardest I think for single people. You will note that there is £50 for every child. Also if you are married with no child or living with someone also unemployed you would get around £100 between you.

It will be single people living on their own who are likely to suffer the most and no, I don't think many people could live well on that and it is going to be even less.

A lot of people will be taken off incapacity - you already seem to be getting more than the higher rate for incapacity, so if you genuinely are on Jobseekers Allowance, prepare yourself for the Government wanting a lot of overpayment back! :shock:

The idea then is to get enough people as possibly off incapacity so that they will only get jobseekers of £65 or £51 depending on age. I guess they will all be losing 10%of their housing benefit after a year.

The reality is it is better that people work for everyone. It is good for people to have some structure to their day and even if the job is boring it at least allows some social interaction. So on every level it is better that people work....but where are the jobs these people are going to be starved into finding?

That is what Osbourne said with a smirk, they were going to create a situation where it would definitely be worth people working. Where are the jobs for them?
 
Last edited:

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm not on incapacity. And if I was I'd definitely be one of the 9/10: Nine out of ten on incapacity benefits 'are fit to return to work' | Mail Online


Anyway, I have asked on a few occasions if the money I was getting was right. In the beginning I expected to live just above hand-to-mouth so I was more than pleasantly surprised. I was always assured that everything was bona, but I still always prepared myself for a cut at some point. Indeed, all good things really do come to an end and I always thought the government were going out on a limb being too flash with the nation's readies (and not just with some benefits - everything.). It all has to be paid for, the worse the longer you leave it.

All in all though, yes, I do want to get back to work and get some money honestly. Kicking about having fun is all well and good if I'm paid to do it for a while, but watching that old Pilger documentary on the unemployed in Liverpool makes me think that things have gone a bit far. You're not gonig to take it as seriously if you now find yourself being penalised for saving your money rather than spending it if they give you a surplus!


Job creation is another issue entirely. One or two ideas spring up but nothing I'm an academic expert at. For a start, as I've said, you can have the hangabout feral youths working for their dole by digging deep holes and things. Have 'em use their muscles and tattoos for good instead of evil. People like me - send me assisting the council workers part time perhaps to get the benefits. They say they're overworked then well, let me help them type something out or get the sandwiches. It'd be a help up, especially as the Jobcentre don't actually find anything for you themselves any more.

I always thought the globalist fanatics in Labour should have done what they always screamed at Margaret Thatcher for not doing, and that's properly invested in a new British industrial base. Even a little one would do, with a few US and Canadian-style import taxes to stop too many being squeezed out by overly plentiful cheap foreign imports. (The old industrial base was just a rotten shell piling debt, so Mrs. Thatcher got rid of it. But her assumption that market forces would create a new one didn't materialise. We got a 'service-based' economy and foreign ownership of British factories, which is no good when the Far East now provides the most lucrative sweat shops in the world, with coolie labour drafted here to squeeze the market even more.)
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not on incapacity. And if I was I'd definitely be one of the 9/10: Nine out of ten on incapacity benefits 'are fit to return to work' | Mail Online

and that is indeed what happened. However this is what I have been talking about. This is the system which tells people in terminal stages of cancer they are fit for work and which most win on appeal!!! very concerning.

Anyway, I have asked on a few occasions if the money I was getting was right. In the beginning I expected to live just above hand-to-mouth so I was more than pleasantly surprised. I was always assured that everything was bona, but I still always prepared myself for a cut at some point. Indeed, all good things really do come to an end and I always thought the government were going out on a limb being too flash with the nation's readies (and not just with some benefits - everything.). It all has to be paid for, the worse the longer you leave it.

But you are receiving more than £35 more than everyone else! How can this be? I agree to being as surprised as yourself. How long have you been claiming? I thought they had stopped basing it on your previous income though possibly that is it if you only have been unemployed for a short time. You don't need to answer that but it just does not make sense that you would get over £35 above the going rate.

All in all though, yes, I do want to get back to work and get some money honestly. Kicking about having fun is all well and good if I'm paid to do it for a while, but watching that old Pilger documentary on the unemployed in Liverpool makes me think that things have gone a bit far. You're not gonig to take it as seriously if you now find yourself being penalised for saving your money rather than spending it if they give you a surplus!

Job creation is another issue entirely.

Job creation is essential if a system is being introduced which will result in some people not having enough to eat.

I always thought Labour should have done what they always screamed at Margaret Thatcher for not doing, and that's properly investing in a new British industrial base. Even a little one would do, with a few US and Canadian-style import taxes to stop too many being squeezed out by overly plentiful cheap foreign imports. (The old industrial base was just a rotten shell piling debt, so she got rid of it. But her assumption that market forces would create a new one didn't materialise. We got a 'service-based' economy and foreign ownership of British factories, which is no good when the Far East now provides the most lucrative sweat shops in the land.)

Well a lot of these problems stem from the Thatcher period. People became unemployed and their unions suggested they go to their dr and say they are depressed and claim incapacity as they would get slightly less than you get on Jobseekers but much more than the normal person does on it. These people then stayed on incapacity and it appears have brought up family's to join them there....so that is certainly where part of the problem came from.

We gave up on the idea of full employment. Portillo was also saying the other night there are some people who just are unemployable.

I think Labour had promised, gosh can't remember who, either everyone or under 25's a job after 6 months unemployment.

My point is that if you are going to bring in draconian methods to cut people's benefits to a level which will almost certainly be injurious to their health, you must provide them with the way out. Jobs must be there and at the moment far from that being the case, more and more people are going to become unemployed, we know that.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's not just me either. The Jobcentre say such an amount is normal. Plus when I've had letters over the past four years saying they've re-evaluated my circumstances and money, they keep saying I deserve more. Alright Canterbury, you're the boss!


As I say, once once more, some people on the dole wouldn't be hungry if people who needed it more got more at the expense of those with enough to splash out regularly. That doesn't mean incompetent managers, people who still apparently live like Charles Dickens' characters (which I rather doubt). The shopkeeper of my favourite place keeps asking me where all the lolly comes from. I tell him I'm getting most of what I can reasonably afford now because there's bound to be a long cold financial winter coming up!

From a personal standpoint I think it's great. Far better to have no problems than some, especially when there's usually money left after bills to go shopping for a pile of trousers, save for a rainy day or a shiny new gadget. But the public spirited bit in me does sympathise with Mr. Osbourne, though I do think that if MPs can guzzle taxpayers' money like it's going out of fashion then I should have a bit as well.
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's not just me either. The Jobcentre say such an amount is normal. Plus when I've had letters over the past four years saying they've re-evaluated my circumstances and money, they keep saying I deserve more. Alright Canterbury, you're the boss!


As I say, once once more, people on the dole wouldn't be hungry if people who needed it more got more at the expense of those with enough to splash out regularly. The shopkeeper of my favourite place keeps asking me where all the lolly cmes from. I tell him I'm getting what I can reasonably afford now because there's bound to be a long cold winter coming up!

From a personal standpoint I think it's great. Far better to have no problems than some, especially when there's usually money left after bills to go shopping for a pile of trousers, save for a rainy day or a shiny new gadget. But the public spirited bit in me does sympathise with Mr. Osbourne, though I do think that if MPs can guzzle taxpayers' money like it's going out of fashion then I shoul;d have a bit as well.

You are getting the wrong amount though. I have often heard it quoted and seen it written. It defies belief. Yes, I can see why things have been quite easy for you. Please understand how it has happened, I do not know, but you are not getting Jobseekers allowance right now. Be a good friend to yourself and start saving big.

If you sent in a letter to the Daily Mail, Canterbury would be unable to move because of the unemployed!

Does this maybe include your rent money?
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is Jobseekers'! I've asked and asked myself and the letter header is the final proof. And that's without the rent money! The Canterbury head office decides all these things so it's not even a glitch at branch level.


I CAN work! I WILL work! But first a hard day's graft down the DSS office!

Most benefit money seems there for the asking, the only real maze in my experience being how to ask. It's the interminable paperwork and being able to pick through everyone's contradicting advice to get it which is the trouble. I suspect, and it's been underlined by ministers wanting to evade accusations of keeping people in poverty, that a great deal of people properly struggling to cope on benefits through no fault of their own just don't know their full entitlements.

Ooo, there's no need to ask me to save! I should do more anyway but I've still a great deal for emergencies. (And with cookers and washing machines built to last a shorter time than Matchbox cars, it's always a good idea regardless of circumstances.)

_____________________

I suspect a lower published amount is more of a conservative estimate, lest already un-nerved taxpayers get even hotter under the collar about funding ice-cream slurping horizontal layabouts like me. And with books published telling foreigners how to claim benefits before they've even left their home nations, meaning you can't even have British dole for British shirkers, I take it the vision of what needs to be halted is ever plainer:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...claiming-benefits-on-path-to-citizenship.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...itain-One-homes-relies-entirely-benefits.html



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...utless-politicians-defraud-the-taxpayers.html

On my way to work, during rush hour, I often see a blind woman commuting into the City with her guide dog. The effort she makes to hold down a 9-to-5 job in London's hurly burly is little short of heroic. No reasonable person could blame her for staying at home on benefits. Instead, she battles on.

It is a sick society in which a woman such as this works and pays taxes so that Karen Matthews and her ilk can draw £300-£400 a week, producing children only for the purpose of guaranteeing yet more freebies.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/life/article203845.ece

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082610/posts


Keith Joseph said people were pricing themselves out of the market. Today they just say everyone else here's lazy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ic-borough-says-locals-lazy-jobs-project.html
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, ROP it is a standard amount. There is no difference. Have a look at your claim and see what additional benefits you are getting because if you have no partner and no children, I am at a loss, unless you have some very special needs. What does it say on your paper. Jobseekers allowance is not changeable to meet the discretion of the person handing it out.


Edit: Here is the full list of benefits for 2010

http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/ssa/benefit_information/benefit_rates.htm#dla

and here are the premiums, you must fit into one of these

Jobseeker's Allowance Income-Based - Premiums
Premiums 2009/2010 2010/2011
Family Premium 17.30 17.40
Family Premium (Lone Parent rate) protected for certain claimants 17.30 17.40
Pensioner Premium - couple 97.50 99.65
Enhanced Pensioner Premium - couple 97.50 99.65
Higher Pensioner Premium - couple 97.50 99.65
Disability Premium - single 27.50 28.00
Disbility Premium - couple 39.15 39.85
Enhanced Disability Premium - couple 19.30 19.65
Enhanced Disability Premium - Single people/Lone Parent 13.40 13.65
Enhanced Disability Premium - Child 20.65 21.00
Severe Disability Premium - single 52.85 53.65
Severe Disability Premium - couple - one qualifies 52.85 53.65
Severe Disabiltiy Premium - couple - both qualify 105.70 107.30
Disabled Child Premium 51.24 52.08
Carer Premium 29.50 30.05
Back to top
 
Last edited:

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I took a look at the 'lost' back page and found the breakdown. Though I was previously told that seperate gifts are spread across different confirmation letters (as has happened), I do get a supplementary which is counted in the main bill. Which is odd because it's not just for the unemployed. I didn't feel I needed it as I can walk unaided and do the housework without bleeding, but I was told I was eligible to be paid for it anyway because the doctor said so, and so they gave it. (After I asked for the minimum amount because I didn't know what it was for, I was told to buy the 'relevant supplies' with it, but both they and I still scratch our heads as to what they are. But if I ask them to stop the money I may find it'd be just my luck to halt it as the long-promised cuts come and they probably wouldn't let me have it back.)

But for now I do still say that I could cope with less because I've worked it out. And I honestly thought I'd be back in work again after a comparitively restful couple of months. But if the Powers That Be give me what they give me then I suppose I shouldn't moan too hard about the laziest man in Britain enjoying it too. (Though I'd rather die if I was still on the dole in another 5 years.)
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Looks like you will be having an opportunity to go to a Medical and convince them you do not need your disability allowance. ;)
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well well well....


1985:

spitting%20image%20book%201.jpg
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hariot Harman has given an excellent reply, saying that what the Chancellor has said is rewriting history, that there is no need for these massive cuts, that what Labour was doing was working and would have reduced the deficit earlier and that this likely will stop our recovery.

It was Nu-Labor what got us into the mess in first place.

Brown sold UK Gold reserves at lowest price, borrowed from whoever with no hope of ever being able to repay, then to compound it all, spent borrowed money setting up 100s of quango's staffed by highly paid idiots.

Remember Prudence? what a joke.

Sometime the debts have to be paid off.

How else can this be done?
 
Top Bottom