Advanced search

To be enjoying Osborne's speech?

(27 Posts)
VeryHardHat Mon 08-Oct-12 13:45:12

Name change for obvious reasons (don't want to be vilified here for life).

I am really enjoying Gid's speech. I agree with it. I am not a Conservative.

I can't be the only one.....?

FolkGhoul Mon 08-Oct-12 13:55:55

I don't know. I haven't listened to the whole thing.

I heard him saying this morning that if you work you have to factor your income in the decision on the number of children you have because the money you get just needs to go further. Whereas people on benefits automatically get more money for each subsequent child they have. And that they want to stop that. And to be fair, that is how it works.

I have been a single parent. I have lived in social housing. I have been a student. I'm now an educated professional. And at every stage of my life I've associated with the sort of person most stereotypically associated with that stage, as well as every other, and I've only ever met two families who didn't think that. One family for whom money was no object and had no personal experience of the benefit system and thought everyone on benefits ought to be pitied. And the other family I believe I mentioned on another thread recently as being the sort of family who had another child as a means of moving up the social housing ladder (and were vilified by their social housing neighbours for doing so, I might add).

But as usual, he's going after those as the bottom of the heap before those at the top.

And I disagree with that immensely.

VeryHardHat Mon 08-Oct-12 16:00:14

The thing is, people at the top pay so much more tax. It is a complete myth that all top rate taxpayers are using tax loopholes. I fair system would be a flat rate of income tax, surely, for then people with more would still be paying more but in proportion.

fishnhips Mon 08-Oct-12 20:27:09

Yes YABVU! "It's a complete myth that all top rate taxpayers are using tax loopholes". It's also a myth that everyone receiving benefits is a benefit scrounger. That's what really annoys me about Gideon and his gang. They are portraying the poorest in society as the biggest leeches and they're not, they are the most desperate. Also, I can only see that not giving poor families money if they have more children only ends up hurting the children the most and that's unacceptable.

Choufleur Mon 08-Oct-12 20:28:51

YABU - he's an arsehole with no comprehension of how the vast majority of the country live.

LineRunner Mon 08-Oct-12 20:29:30

It childcare costs that make working parents worry about parenthood.

And the Tories already cut the help for working parents with that.

ParrotTulip Mon 08-Oct-12 21:04:50

yabu and completely clueless.

mrsminerva Mon 08-Oct-12 21:08:38

YANBU but I don't fancy your chances on this one here. At least you have a hard hat!

threesocksmorgan Mon 08-Oct-12 21:12:03

good for you op.
so glad for you,
do hope you never get disabled or poor

LineRunner Mon 08-Oct-12 23:40:08

I just watched it and it was embarrassingly hackneyed and awful.

missingmumxox Tue 09-Oct-12 00:05:41

you won't have many friends on here for that, but basically I get his drift as in working families, less money on having children, non working more money, and I have no truck with people who say " oh but the children will suffer" my children are suffering as my wages have been frozen for 3 years, pension (because I believe in looking after my future) gone up etc, my taxes pay for those children of non wage earner of people capable of work, my cousin was one, she is on child 5 in 23 years, It was galling to me to hear her say she couldn't afford to work, and not her fault either, you should be better off working.
but the these twats are taking away as many working rights as they can, and we had the worst working rights in Europe as it was, I believe in the first world America is the only place worse.
they need a balance, but it does need reform, for the record last job my cousin gave up on pregnancy was at 17,000 ish took mat leave, handed in notice, she had been offered teacher training by school on her wage, but was better off at home, no travel costs, child care, smart clothes, hassle of getting to work, lunches, doing extra work out side of it.

claig Tue 09-Oct-12 00:14:26

'To be enjoying Osborne's speech?'

You are not the only one.

HoopDePoop Tue 09-Oct-12 00:14:57

To 'agree with his speech' and I'd say YANBU, you're entitled to your view on how the economy should be sorted out.

But to 'enjoy' it? YABU. These are real people he is insulting and talking about taking income from, and moralising over.

He and the rest of the Tory scum in government are using the current economic situation as an excuse to wage war on the benefits system, not because it'll save money but because they think it's wrong to not work. Sort out employment figures and childcare costs you fuckers before criticising people who make the decision it's not worth working. Just read some of the 'returning to work' threads on here for some idea, Gideon!

Making policy decisions because it will sort the economy is the job of the Chancellor. Moralising is for the religious and the free intellectual.

OP, you sum up barely hidden Tory thoughts with that one word 'enjoy' angry

Brycie Tue 09-Oct-12 00:18:23

I agree with you, but he's no public speaker, he just doesn't have the charisma.

LonelyCloud Tue 09-Oct-12 00:21:50

His proposal to strip employees of their rights by forcing them to have shares in their companies instead is outrageous. In a bad way.

I'd rather have redundancy rights than shares in my employer. I can't imagine my shares would be worth much if my employer was doing badly enough to make people redundant.

apostropheuse Tue 09-Oct-12 00:38:44

So these children are born into the poorest of families (because they will be born, whatever number has been decided as appropriate by government) and then you just say...sorry you can't eat or have clothing or any other life necessities, because your parent won't/can't work.

So what does society do then?

a) leave them to starve
b) remove them from parental care and pay many times more for LA care

Yes great idea, punish the children.

He's a complete and utter twat.

CommunistMoon Tue 09-Oct-12 01:22:23


MadameOvary Tue 09-Oct-12 01:40:12

Whoever was stupid enough to enough to vote for this lot - hope you're happy. You've enabled the most vulnerable in society to be exploited as scapegoats to draw attention away from the real culprits. Yes there are people who "could" work and don't. Shock horror. How much damage do they do? Really? Its already common knowledge that IDS inflated the benefit fraud figures so he could stir up hatred for the disabled and disadvantaged so that welfare "reforms" were welcomed rather than universally despised as a shameless attack on the vulnerable.

As other posters say, I hope you never get old or sick. But hey, who cares as long as you're all right?

goinnowhere Tue 09-Oct-12 06:47:47

I just don't see how his plans help anyone. We have 50/50 chance of redundancy in a few months. As a result, we have not been spending 700 quid in our usual local businesses ( handy man, hairdressers, cafe, restaurants, gardener etc). That is each month, all those businesses suffering. His latest awful ideas just suck even more money out.

Brycie Tue 09-Oct-12 07:52:02

"(because they will be born, whatever number has been decided as appropriate by government)"

I think your assumption is wrong, and I think it will be shown to be wrong.

"His proposal to strip employees of their rights by forcing them to have shares in their companies instead is outrageous. In a bad way. I'd rather have redundancy rights than shares in my employer."

It would be a choice, no forcing.

LonelyCloud Tue 09-Oct-12 09:07:28

Brycie - they are proposing changing legislation so that, from April 2013, employers can force prospective new employees to have shares instead of rights as a compulsory condition of employment. Article from the Guardian linked below.

workers can swap rights for company shares

apostropheuse Tue 09-Oct-12 09:37:37

Brycie, I think that you're right in that the numbers would be reduced. However, there will still be children born into that situation. Still children suffering. Innocent children who have no say in how their parents run their lives.

ChickensHaveNoEyebrows Tue 09-Oct-12 09:44:50

I can't really pay attention to his words because I'm so creeped out by his attempts to copy human facial expressions <shudder> No, don't smile! Please! <AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH>

Mrsjay Tue 09-Oct-12 09:49:29

He is tarring with the same brush he is an arse not all poor people on benefit suck the life out of this country,

Mrsjay Tue 09-Oct-12 09:50:59

and I have to agree with a poster who said that children will suffer people will not stop having children on the say of george

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: