Why the Tories are bastards

No Claig...he sounds real pissed off to me tonight.

The bastards.

Minimum wage has risen to just over £6.08 an hour from yesterday. It's not enough and should, imo, be double that. Imagine if they get rid of it.

Anyone with children cannot manage on the minmum wage so the government have to top it up to a decent amount. This enables employers to boost their profits.

'Right whose fucking upset ttosca? Come on own up'

Are you sure ttosca has been upset? I haven't noticed any change.

Right whose fucking upset ttosca? Come on own up

It's enough to make your head explode...eh fella

CB affects everyday families does it? ROFL. Also the reason they have decided to charge for use of the CSA is because the government are no longer taking the money and actually giving it to LP's instead.

I think that politics are personal and might have a bearing on where you start in life but not in an obvious way. I find people who lean towards the left to be more intelligent and look towards the bigger picture compared to the right wingers who seem to be in if for themselves.

You don't need to be or ever have been poor to have empathy.

The minimum wage did not result in an increase in unemployment when it was enacted, despite the scaremongering of the Tory shits and the CBI.

Every civilised country on the planet has a minimum wage. These people are barbarians.

They complain about 'the workshy' and then wonder why people aren't motivated to find work at £5 per hour.

Utter scum. Vile, vile, vile nasty Tory scum.

This is another example of why the Tories are bastards:

David Cameron would allow minimum wage to die out

David Cameron would allow the minimum wage to "melt away" if he became PM, senior Tories have disclosed.

The national set rate for adults was raised by 3.8 per cent from £5.52 to £5.73 an hour on October 1 - the ninth increase since Labour introduced the measure in April 1998 to help millions of people on low wages.

But the Tory leader believes the rate cannot be allowed to continue to rise annually in line with the rate of inflation. Mr Cameron will not scrap the minimum wage, as he's aware such a move would infuriate unions, low-paid workers and politicians.

A senior Tory source revealed: "It would be foolish to continue hiking up the minimum hourly rate by the rate of inflation every year. We need to find ways of helping British business to remain competitive.

"The minimum wage won't be scrapped but it will be allowed to wither on the vine. A series of smaller, more affordable increases will mean it will just melt away."

Labour MPs fear a Tory-led government will be able to engineer "tiny" increases to the hourly rate by changing the personnel on the Low Pay Commission - the body which oversees the increases.

Advertisement - article continues below »

Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson said last night: "The Tories would allow the minimum wage to die out, condemning thousands of workers to a life on poverty pay."

Another Government source said: "There's no doubt that Cameron and his multi-millionaire pals in the City are no friends of the minimum wage. It will just dwindle away under the Tories."

Since the minimum wage was introduced in 1998, it has increased by 59.2 per cent, compared with a rise of just 44.2 per cent in average earnings. Despite grim warnings from the Tories, it has not led to any significant job losses.

Revenue and Customs officials enforce the hourly rate and bosses can be fined up to £5,000 per offence for breaking the rules.

David Cameron won't sack his embattled party chairman Caroline Spelman. The Tory leader will delay a decision on her fate until a sleaze probe is over, Tory sources said. Ms Spelman is facing allegations she used taxpayers-funded parliamentary allowances to pay for her nanny.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/10/05/david-cameron-would-allow-minimum-wage-to-die-out-115875-20775693/

I think GB's heart was in the right place and overall is an honourable man. But he just didn't have the skills needed to be a good PM. I think he was most effective as a do-er, not a leader. A PM needs to be able to lead, build consensus and put people at ease. None of those skills came naturally to him. I first noticed the lack of leadership skills when he used to disappear every time Tony had to deliver bad news but was always there when there was good news.

Whilst as a politician he may have seen this as a shrewd move, it shows his character and when he couldn't avoid it when he was PM, it was plain to see he was incredibly uncomfortable.

Niceguy I doubt I will say this again but I probably agree.

I suspect that GB had good intentions, forgetting the tantrums etc I can see a lot of me in him and I am built of good intentions- I am no PM though. I am about as non media as can be, I know this, a charm free zone in fact. I suspect that was the case with him.

TB did a lot that made my life easier to succeed in. I appreciate it.

And whilst I don;t believe that rick automatically means no clue I absolutely don't think GO and DC have any clue at all: you can be rich and get out there and care, or you can be rich and get into select social group and not give a flying damn. I personally believe they re the latter. Iraq did for him though. Probably fairly although years on even with hindsight I am not sure what the right call was- leave Saddam in power or stay away, probably stay away but doubt that would be without consequence.

I don't think Ed stands a chance at election, even though I am one who voted him in. I know who I hope will follow in his path, but we shall see.

I've said it before, I actually don't think Cameron & Osbourne do truly understand the plight of the average family. I truly don't. Otherwise they wouldn't have come up with the stupid CB cut or the charging to use the CSA.

But then look at the alternative at the time. Five more years of Gordon Brown??? No thanks. Now Red Ed? Oh please!

The last PM to truly understand your average family was Tony Blair. Like him or loathe him, his Tonyness understood that most people just wanted to be given the opportunities and the space to succeed. And that if/when they get there, they don't want to be taxed into oblivion.

I did miss the date but mainly was replying to another poster and actually trying to be nice across the board so cut the nasty sarcasm please

So if you accept that there is no monopoly on personal integrity or honesty and that, regardless of background, wealth and political leanings, anyone is capable of behaving as well or as badly as anyone else... then the 'why Tories are bastards' was something of a facetious and inaccurate statement.

'Selfish, money-oriented people wouldn't want to expose themselves to public approbation for the relatively average wage an MP gets.'

It's not about wages, it's about power and influence. The ruling classes, liberal elites and Etonians always entered politics, but not for the wages.

Again, I don't see the 'silver spoon' thing as a problem. The kind of person that takes money as a given and doesn't care about anything or anyone is unlikely to go into politics. Selfish, money-oriented people wouldn't want to expose themselves to public approbation for the relatively average wage an MP gets. There are lots of far easier ways to enjoy their millions quietly somewhere else

They aren't Lords and Baronesses before they get to Parliament. Hereditary peers are long gone and the ones we have today are there o because of their contribution either in the Commons, commerce or some other walk of life. People like Valerie (Baroness) Amos - born in Guyana and educated at a grammar - got there after an impressive career in equality and social justice including a time as head of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

niceguy-

Let me think...would I rather have a successful (aka rich) businessman in charge of the nation or a couple of Vickie Pollards & Frank Gallagher's to represent us just because they are closer to our backgrounds! confused

I think you should question why it is that so many people in Parliament and positions of power are Lords, Ladies, Barons, Baronesses, etc. and Oxbridge educated. Something is obviously wrong there. It's indicative of a prejudice and lack of class mobility when able and intelligent people from different backgrounds are not represented nearly as much as they could be.

I do find tiresome is the sheer bias that some people have. And that's if Labour announced the same policy it would be sensible but if the Tories announce it then the worst is assumed.

Golly, can you think of a reason why people might assume the worst from the Tories? Anything to do with history, perhaps?

aquashiv, Maisie was right about manufacturing declining more under Labour than Thatcher. I was surprised the first time I heard it, because if you believed Labour speeches and the media in general, you would never guess. The FT did the study.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232897/Manufacturing-decline-Labour-greater-Margaret-Thatcher.html

I have read quite a few threads in recent days and whenever CogitoErgoSometimes writes something, I end up nodding in agreement. I agree totally with what she said.

.

Having lived in poor countries, I would defo say the poorer people are, the more generous they are too.

I found it was people with low paid menial jobs who ALWAYS gave something to street beggars.

id rather have frank gallagher sobered up any day. intelligent man that man.

Do you not regard it as problematic that those supposedly representing our interests at Westminster are frequently from backgrounds so very far removed from those they purport to represent?

Let me think...would I rather have a successful (aka rich) businessman in charge of the nation or a couple of Vickie Pollards & Frank Gallagher's to represent us just because they are closer to our backgrounds!

But as Iggly's already pointed out, I am much more concerned with the fact that nowadays people become career politician's rather than having had working experience. With the previous lot, I think the only one of them who used to have a proper job was Two Jags Prescott.

I do find tiresome is the sheer bias that some people have. And that's if Labour announced the same policy it would be sensible but if the Tories announce it then the worst is assumed.

Bread, if you are so concerned then the solution is simple. Stand as a MP. It seems a bit rich to berate others for having the gumption to stand for election if you are not prepared to do something about it.

The 'bootstrap' remark is exactly why Milliband took the line he did this week. He's finally realising what Thatcher realised decades earlier that the working classes don't necessarily want 'caring for' (very passive) but that they are quite ambitious, want opportunity for betterment & expect effort to be matched by reward. What they don't like seeing are others appearing to be rewarded for no effort.

firmly wc in upsbringing here, and exception to my own rule - i think generally ime its true.

took me ages to get a friend of mine who lived on the same rough as shit estate as me - to register to vote.

then she voted bnp

i thought i got through to her and on the next election she told me she was going to vote tory.

i told her that allm the benefits she would be recieving wou;ld be cut.

she said she would always get the disability benefit for her disabled child - they wouldnlt touch that