Day of Protest Against Benefit Cuts

this uncaring thing is far too simplistic. Don't you care about the civil liberties of our great country and its people? The Coalition has scrapped Labour's Stalinist schemes. It has torn up hundreds of their bureaucratic rules.

"There's no money left" note is a historical joke from one chancellor to the next.

There is never any money left.
Economies DON'T work like house-keeping, not matter what the Boy says.

Kalok, sorry but they are not as bad as each other, whilst Labour is very far from perfect they are no way as uncaring as the Tories.

As for "change ahead", yes there will be changes but very much for the worse.

Do you mean apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have the Conservatives ever done for us?

They have increased the state pension, they have not increased national insurance. They always aim to decrease the tax burden and encourage business to create employment.

But I agree with Kaloki, not only disabled, but many other people have struggled under both governments. It does matter who you vote for, because it affects business and it is business that creates the wealth that can pay for all of our services. Without business friendly policies, our wealth will decline.

Gideon didn't know the real state of the finances. He took a lot of what Labour was telling him at face value.

Of course he did, of course he did.

Claig, please name me one thing the Tories have ever done for the poor and needy, simple request, I cant think of one. I can however think of a few good things they have opposed or nasty things they have done.

Over to you.

'Gideon has perfect hindsight and is always wise after the event'

well that's a lot more than Gordon Brown has got.

I think Osborne was calling for it even before the crash, but my googling is not up to finding out.

'Gideon was promising to maintain labours spending levels until it all went tits up.'

Gideon didn't know the real state of the finances. He took a lot of what Labour was telling him at face value. It was only when he took office that he found a note from Liam Byrne saying "there's no money left". Liam Byrne didn't tell Osborne or the nation that during the election.

Then you agree with St. George Osborne, scourge of the progressives. He said that banks should never be too big to fail

Pity he has only held those opinions since the economy crashed, he is a fool in most cases, I loved his praise of the Irish economy in 2007 before the collapse. Say what you may, Gideon has perfect hindsight and is always wise after the event.

Gideon was promising to maintain labours spending levels until it all went tits up.

Good luck to those of you who are marching on Monday. I'm really glad you're going, and thank you for protesting against this on behalf of everyone else who will ever need some help from the state.

Then you agree with St. George Osborne, scourge of the progressives. He said that banks should never be too big to fail

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7989729.stm

He called for an end to Brown's tripartite regulatory system, and wanted the Bank of England to be placed back in charge.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5127230/George-Osborne-eyes-the-path-to-better-banking-controls.html

Craig, as i have said many times before I hold no torch for New Labour, far to Torylite for my taste and far to authoritarian, that said at least they tried to help the poor and needy which the Tories never have.

As for Tories asking for tighter regulation, sorry but you just made that up.

Just remember it was Thatcher who removed most of the city regulations for the benefit of her cronies.

Good article BTW a fair critique of crony capitalism and the need to squeeze the rich for all that they have "cheated" this country out of. The sooner the banks are cut down to size the better, never again should they be "to big to fail" and to be allowed to hold this country to ransom.

same old Labour, same progressive policies.
But no one can spin a better yarn and get a bigger yawn than them.

But Fred the Shred was knighted by Labour for his services to banking. He was close to Gordon Brown. Nothing to do with the Tories, who were asking for tighter regulation, which was refused by Labour.

Here is an article, by a progressive, on Gordon Brown's light touch regulation. Maybe soft touch would have been a better name?

londonprogressivejournal.com/article/285/gordon-brown-and-light-touch-regulation

"I would rather them target the feckless tossers who don't have a work ethic and who think that this country owes them a living.

That would be the bankers then would it.

Lose your job on minimum wage and sign on then your a feckless tosser, almost destroy our economy and then be bailed out, then that's ok. How about a huge pension for Fred the shred (a man who destroyed many jobs so as to get a bigger bonus through increased profits) fine with the Tories i should think.

SAME OLD TORY GOVERNMENT SCUM, SAME OLD TORY SUPPORTERS

Did or did not Cameron say "no bonus over £2000" he was asked by Milliband (PMQ) how this policy was going and he avoided answering the question.

Cameron is a proven liar, wont touch EMA (liar), bankers bonuses (liar), CB will remain universal (liar)

madamecastafiore, then i guess cammeron was telling all his voters lies then.

oh dear, it is as i thought... not really a huge suprise from a tory party who will always, no matter what, be nasty.

Hear Hear Hossylass.

They can take away my mobility allowance if they so wish, as long as they replace it with a top of the range reclining powerchair, make all public transport accessible, provide me with an powerchair that fits in my house, make my house accesible - including the kitchen, and provides me with enough money to hire a support worker when I need one.

And replace the items when they become worn out.

So instead of £49 a week they have to spend the same as the purchase of two small cars and a carer. And revamp every bus, train carriage, bus station, train station and a lot of rural bus routes.

And then they have to provide the same for every person with mobility difficulties, regardless of whether they are in a residential unit or their own home.

Residential homes cannot offer a replacement service - they simply cant afford it, so the only solution is to empower those in care homes by providing them with the means to mobilise, which means providing the means or paying for the means.
Paying for the means is the cheapest option.

longfingernails, I truly hope you never have to live with a disability, or care for someone who has a disability. I can't fathom why mobility allowance is expensive for what it achieves, in the end, if a disabled person cannot get around, then someone is going to have to do it for them. This means taking away the independence of people to do what they can do for themselves, including work where they are able. Without mobility, people will end up isolated, stuck at home on their own, and if there isn't anyone else to do things for them (cuts to care and social services), then the ultimate end will be that people will die, they will starve from being unable to go shopping, they will commit suicide from loneliness and frustration. They will have their money taken from them when they can't attend benefit assessment appointments and they will become ill because they can't get to the doctors.

People who are managing their lives with the help of their DLA will not be able to do it without that cash. So on the contrary, mobility allowance is value for money, because it would cost the state a hell of a lot more to pay for carers to do things which disabled people could do for themselves.

But MPs will never target themselves

Lego - those people with broader shoulders and the financial services industry pay a phenominal amount into the budget of this country already - I would rather them target the feckless tossers who don't have a work ethic and who think that this country owes them a living.

Then I would march.

I put this link up on another thread also for anyone who doubts the protest is needed.

onemonthbeforeheartbreak.blogspot.com/

Quite right Lego - The broader shoulders ephithet was used to describe those who would be losing child benefit (and therefore 'excusing' it). Funnily enough there seems to be no such description to 'excuse ' the cuts in DLA and other benefits. They are just pushing them through - no excuse included.

hows about instead of cutting from disabled people, the elderly and children we take from 'those of broader shoulders' to help sort out the deficit? that was the buzz phrase/plan wasn't it-pre election?
i must have misunderstood that phrase as i don't see disabled people or the elderly or children as those with the broadest shoulders. i do see see top earners/tax payers and banks with "broad shoulders" though. but, oh no, silly me, none of this seems to be touching them afterall.

good on those of you marching.