TUC National Demonstration Against Cuts

What luxuries do you think you can afford on £65 a week? Even if your rent is paid, you've still got to eat and heat.

i had the pleasure if seeing a man walk along the traffic punching every taxi he came across, apparently he was protesting against the cuts?!?!?

Oh and love the way some of the "protesters" are so proud of what they were doing that they kept their faces covered!!

@wubblybubbly - no, I don't think that everyone on JSA is having a whale of a time. I really hope they are not. They should just have the basics - not the luxuries - that's all I'm saying.

Studyinghard - would that include then, someone who has just left an abusive relationship and is too traumatised to find work?

And if the police need more money to fund extra staff and hours, put up speed cameras on every road so that the stupid, gullible drivers who think they can break the law wherever they are get fined.

"
Save police jobs, get more speed cameras!
Save police jobs, get more speed cameras!
Save police jobs, get more speed cameras!
Save police jobs, get more speed cameras!
"

Can someone tell me what's wrong with that? There's nothing forcing people to drive over the speed limit.

Studying hard, you think everyone on JSA is having a whale of a time? I guess all those public sector workers getting sacked have nothing to worry about then, if it's so cushty.

Funny that anyone would bother working for a pittance, when it's so easy to sit on their arses all day and be much better off.

Tell you what, why not stick the fuckers in a workhouse? That'll teach 'em.

@Jogon - "It should provide the very basics."

Wholeheartedly agree - pay for housing that's appropriate for the number of people who are in the house, vouchers for food, clothing, bills - the necessities - not for extras like alcohol, smoking, sky tv, etc. Not for socialising, e.g. going to the cinema, etc. That should be their right. No more, no less. Incentivise people to get more. People on low incomes who work hard for the pittance they receive have to juggle money and have to make tough decisions about what they spend their literal pennies on. If they can't afford luxuries, they don't buy luxuries. The state should not be paying for luxuries.

Sure, if we want a state that does pay for people and to mollycoddle people and look after their every whim, that's a completely different scenario - and, trust me, there would be public uproar if the government interfered to that extent.

I agree, the taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for working families who still can't afford to pay their rent.

I think business should pay their employees a decent living wage from their massive profits, rather than expecting the tax payer to prop up their profits.

Look at the figures Jogon. Of that £148bn, almost half of it is payments to pensioners. Another almost £26bn is paid to the ill and disabled.

Housing benefit is not only paid to the unemployed. It is paid to the disabled and those on low wages.

Wish I could have been there, I just could not possibly afford to get to London :( The cuts are disgusting and unnecessarily harsh, the Tory led coalition are making full use of the fact the there is a budget deficit to act out their ideologies.

LFN's posts really go to show how George Osbourne supporters really are mentally ill.

The welfare bill is crippling us. That is a fact that has to be addressed whilst protecting the genuinely needy.

The tax payer should not be paying for housing benefit for homes far more expensive than most working people can afford to buy.

It should not be paying for healthy adults to live a lifestyle that is far from the breadline.

It should provide the very basics.

I've been asking about what Alternative. This year's borrowing, even after the cuts isn't £40b, it's £146b.

The only answer so far was deal with tax avoidance

• well if that raises £25b, so if you leave the current cuts, then this year's deficit will be around £121b. Or is part of the plan to increase the overspendng and thus the debt? By how much, and what are the future interest payments?

• the other was "get back what we gave the banks": aside from the snag that selling the equity now would bring HMG a loss (waiting might break even or even bring profit), how would the alternative programme do this?

Jogon, I posted this link previously.

It shows (according to the Daily Mail) the breakdown of public spending under the last financial year under Labour.

According to the Mail, who I'm sure have no reason to under play the costs, the total benefits bill (including pensions) came to £148bn. Has our benefits bill really increased that much under the tories?

You won't get an argument from me about closing tax loopholes.
However, still leaves a deficit of 15 bn not even talking about the debt.

Thanks for pointing out the figures, Jogon. Welfare - especially pensions - is the main financial commitment.

Tell you what. Everyone's shouting for Mr Green to pay more income tax - even though, legally, he doesn't have to (and don't forget this was the case for the 13 years that labour was in power so don't blame the coalition).

So, go on then, pay more. And while you're at it, you're clearly loaded so you don't need any more money so you may as well drive your businesses to the wall. Sure, people will be out of jobs and the high street will be affected but, hey, you can't be arsed now, can you? - there's no incentive. And don't bother investing any money in anything. You don't have to - keep it to yourself. Don't give any money to charity and don't invest in training young people in retail. Just sod it all.

The amount of tax that is paid on dividends that Philip Green's wife pays, perfectly legally, is exactly the same as any foreign investor in a UK company will pay. If you tax Philip Green (or his wife), you will have to tax every other foreign investor.

That'll be good for the economy won't it? Tax Mrs Green, tax every other foreign investor, lose investment in all sectors, and then see jobs go - and, no - the investment and the jobs won't be coming back soon.

We are in a capitalist society - people build business for financial gain. People invest for financial gain. Business brings income and employment - help the businesses, especially the small ones. Create a flexible workforce - not one that's stuck in the dark ages supported by unions where change isn't permitted.

Jogon, I think it would certainly be unrealistic to expect the lovely Mr Green to pay for it all himself.

If the deficit is running at £40bn a year, that £25bn would be a canny start, surely?

It's when the police do something for a change (as opposed to handing out lollipops in community engagement projects) and keep sanctimonious whingers out of everyone else's way.

What's kettling?

Oh sorry, the TOTAL tax avoidance bill is only 25bn?? So a tenth of the welfare bill alone?

So, where is the money to come from?

So, the one off bank bail out was £85 bn. Phillip Green needs to pay £25 bn ( annually?). Trident will cost 3bn.

The welfare bill ALONE is £232 bn every single year and rising. The amount of income tax generated annually is LESS than the welfare bill.

FGS you don't have to be a leftie, a rightie or an inbetweenie to have the brains to see something has to change and that we cannot possibly, POSSIBLY continue like this.

jack, the TUC reckon the total avoidance bill comes in at around £25bn, I think I heard yesterday.

No idea where they get the figure from mind you, just pointing out that there's more than Philip Green at it

ohm - according to you Green's tax avoidance is 1/4 billion PA. According to the TUC our structural deficit is £40bn per year.

Anyone who can use a calculator can see that even if its possible - stopping 'billionaire' tax avoidance can only make a tiny contribution at best.

"The right are more cating. The left think they have a monopoly on care. It's a myth they choose to perpetuate. It's lke spoon feeding your child until it's 18. It has no self reliance. Encouraging responsibility for yourself, an internal mind set issue, rather than the hand of the state will always provide..."

Do you mean like DLA Xenia? Paid to those with disabilities and illnesses to help them overcome the barriers to independent living and working in a way most of us taking for granted?

Shame then that the tories have plucked an arbitrary figure out of the air and decided that's how much they'll shave off the DLA bill, before they've even assessed the need. That really demonstrates how caring they are.

watch and be disllusioned Xenia as the cuts bite you'll see just how caring they are.

Someone up the thread wondered how much closing loopholes would save, Philip Green, one person, wangled himself out of 1/4 billion tax bill and there are many more like him. It would bring in a lot of money.

my fave placards:

Why did Clegg cross the road? Because he said he wouldn't.
Eton Mess
you can't open minds with closed libraries

The coalition and labour would make almost the same amount of cuts as each other - admittedly, the coalition are doing slightly more - but all parties are in agreement that there needs to be cuts. Labour squandered money and lost control of the finances during Brown's era even when he said there would be "no return to boom and bust" (well, he got that totally wrong).

So, it doesn't matter who is in power, it's going to hurt. Everyone can argue about who was responsible and who is accountable but the fact is, we are where we are and we have to deal with it. Yes, there's a potential difference in "how fast" the cuts would come in but labour may well have cut at the same rate - we'll never know because they are not in power.

Milliband and labour will try and say anything to get opposition to this and get anti-government protests kicked off. Their selfish agenda is to get back in power, not to support every member of the public - don't be fooled. If labour had been in power now and the cuts were taking hold, the march may or may not have happened due to the links between labour and the unions - but people would have still felt disenfranchised.

In any organisation, be it commercial, council, health service, we should constantly review jobs, job functions, processes, etc. to be as lean and mean as possible whilst being able to be responsive to changes where needed. There is so much deadwood in local government, so many middle management in the NHS, etc. and it's time to stop creating jobs and bureaucracy for its own sake and think of these things as businesses.

Of course people are going to be angry and losing jobs is the last thing anyone wants for themselves but if a job is deemed to add no value to the organisation (even though you may work your socks off for 40 hours a week), then the job should cease to exist.

Imagine if it was your company and your money and you had a department that wasn't providing any benefit to the company. What would you do? Keep employing them, costing you money for no reason at all? Move them to a different department (change of job) - but then they'll go to the union and complain like hell that they have to sit in a different chair because that's a change they don't like? Or make them redundant - again there'll be the union threats?

Every organisation has to make these choices, it just so happens that this is the largest one in the country and incitement from unions gets everyone thinking that their pals in labour would do it differently - well, they wouldn't do it that differently.

Sorry - rant over.

You don't really get it, do you Xenia?