I wonder what the real reason is behind welfare reform?

morethanpotatoprints

Flatpack

Are you on the same planet. NO government does not have a say in how you treat your body, whether you smoke or drink or are overweight.

Since when? If you go to the doctor they now have to ask if you smoke and if you do they'll ask you whether you'd considered giving up. There are government programmes for cutting smoking. The same applies to alcohol. Haven't you seen the TV adverts and posters?

They and society in general also have no say in how anybody lives, what they spend their remaining money on.

That simply isn't the case as 13 years of Labour bullying and hectoring showed us. Endless bloody nagging programmes. Eat this, don't eat that. Drink this, not that. Don't smoke. Exercise. Government clearly believes it has every right to tell us how to live and what to do.

Tax payers also have no say in where their tax goes because it isn't their money it belongs to the government. Unless I have missed an important questionnaire they have sent me grin

Well, this is where we disagree and where there's a big difference between 'left' and 'right' (for want of better terms). Left traditionally believes that all money is inherently owned by the government and that people - particularly hard-working, wealthy people - are merely holding it temporarily before government confiscates it and does what it wants with it. Right traditionally believes that government doesn't automatically own all the money in the country and doesn't have an inherent right to it.

They go on TV and spin and weave and lie through their teeth without a by your leave and totally ignore the elephant in the room.

All that the Daily Mail does is say there's Nellie the elephant, what are you going to do about it?

Of course they don't like that, it puts a spanner in their spin and makes them fear they might not win.

Read the comments of the silent majority at the bottom of Daily Mail articles. That is why they fear the Daily Mail. They wish it would shut up exposing the truth. The Daily Mail is much more than being about royal and celebs.

It speaks for the public and not the progressives. That is why they don't like it. That is why the millionaires, the spinners, the great and the good and the progressives don't like it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301757/Governments-climate-watchdog-launches-astonishing-attack-Mail-Sunday--revealing-global-warming-science-wrong.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

'Ha ha at your description of the DM, Claig. It's a silly rag, the quality of journalism is awful and it's editorial obsession is royals and celebs.'

If that were really the case, then the progressives and their higly paid spinners would not fear the Daily Mail. They would not fear its high sales figures, they would not fear the way just one of its headlines can sink their entire spin campaigns.

There is no paper that the spinners and progressives fear more than the Daily Mail. They prefer their tame pussycat papers and TV news stations. What they fear is the lion that roars. What they fear is the truth. What they fear is the public seeing through the lies and spin and discovering the truth. The Daily Mail speaks for the public and not for the progressives. That is why they fear the Daily Mail and that is why it has such high sales.

The TV License is the only hypothecated tax in this country. Other than everything goes in and out of one big pot.

Now, what is the OP talking about?

The Daily Mail is like the canary in a coal mine. It warns the public of mistakes, errors and policies that are going wrong. It is a treasure trove that dispenses nuggets of information to a hungry public.

The Guardian is a different beast entirely - it is a multi-headed hydra, a fire-breathing Gorgon that frazzles the brain and catches good, unwary people in its net as it writes about "saving the planet".

'Why does 'the public' think all these things, Claig? I don't. But maybe that's because I don't read the Daily Mail.'

You are right, not all of the public thinks that, but I think the majority do think that, and we will find out when election time comes. Elections are about majorities. What New Labour bigwigs think will not matter, because at the end of the day, what matters is what the public thinks.

'A better question. Why does the Daily Mail print such stories? What good does it do, to stir people up in hatred against each other? Why are its stories so different from what I read in the Guardian? And who is 'right'?'

We live in a pluralist society with many different opinions. The Oxbridge educated Primrose Hill progressives and Etonians are a small minority. The Daily Mail does not speak for any of them. They all want carbon taxes and ring-fenced overseas aid etc etc. The Daily Mail speaks for the silent majority (which is why it has such high sales figures and why its online paper is teh number one internet news site in the world). In a democracy, it has a valuable function. It represents and gives voice to the silent minority, the "squeezed middle" and teh middle classes.

Why does this matter? Because public policy matters, because politics matter, because the people and the country matter. Maybe teh spinners and the progressives have got things wrong, maybe they are not carrying out or listening to the wishges of the silent, powerless majority. That is why a different voice needs to be heard, soi that issues can be debated from both sides and the best solution can be found.

'What good does it do, to stir people up in hatred against each other?'

It does not stir up hatred, it holds a mirror to society and asks people "have you seen this? Do you think this is right?" Is it right that a benefit claimant should be paid £4000 of public money per week to live in Belgtavia and should then sublet that property out? That is not hate. That is news and is about our society and politics. It is the spinners who smear the Daily Mail journalist with the tag of haters in order to shut them up and stop them informing the public and teh result is that public funds are wasted because of this.

'Why are its stories so different from what I read in the Guardian? And who is 'right'? '

That is obvious and needs no answer. The Daily Mail is right.

'So how do we know what to believe? I suppose we only see what we want to see, don't we?'

We know what to believe by using our experience. We listen to debate and all opinions and we spot spin and lies and look at what works. We use judhement and information from all sides. We don't only see what we want to see. The public don't like the Tories, they don't like what they "see", but they don't care about what they "see", what they care about is that it is with the Tories that they agree. They don't have to like them, but they can still back them.

Why does 'the public' think all these things, Claig? I don't. But maybe that's because I don't read the Daily Mail.

A better question. Why does the Daily Mail print such stories? What good does it do, to stir people up in hatred against each other? Why are its stories so different from what I read in the Guardian? And who is 'right'?

Could it be that neither is accurate unless it shows the other side of the question? In which case, in order to be fully informed, wouldn't you have to read both? Who has time for that?

So how do we know what to believe? I suppose we only see what we want to see, don't we?

www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=CRND/CRND_Portfolio/NIFIA

I've had a look at this link, that OP referenced earlier and it does seem that National Insurance is held in a separate account and is effectively untouchable. It is an insurance and not a tax. The amount is set at 2bn minimum in case of emergencies such as an epidemic but the HMRC can only borrow out of it and put back into it - the government cannot decide to reduce it or change its value. So saving money for the NI account does not mean extra goes into the HMRC coffers.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

MTSgroupie, you are right. But it is worse than that. Some people felt they were being denied work opportunities, that agencies preferred non-;locals to them and that large contractors often dealt with these agnecies. Whether that is right or wrong I don't know.

But many people feel they are being "squeezed", not treated fairly, and that they are paying taxes out of their "squeezed" income in order to benefit people who are not contributing like they are.

During the lead up to the London Olympics there were news stories about how it was having little effect on local unemployment because a lot of the service jobs were going to Eastern Europeans. Apparently, after tax, travel expenses etc what was left wasn't enough to encourage local people to come off benefits.

There has to be something wrong with a benefit system where a job is attractive enough for someone to come over from Eastern Europe but not for someone who lives a 30min bus ride away.

'Raise wages. Don't cut benefits. That is nasty, vindictive, cruel and unnatural'

This is New Labour style policy, but it will not get public support.

You can't tell businesses to raise wages because we are in the midst of teh worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Businesses are in crisis and unemployment is rising, raising wages would increase costs and reduce salkes and profitability and lead to more job losses. This is a crisis.

Labour's policy (so they say now) is not to cut the benefits that the Tories are cutting. But teh public thinks that some benefit claimants are swinging the lead and jiving and swinging in dancehalls with supposedly bad backs and teh public wants something done about it. New Labour are once again out of touch with public sentiment.

'The trouble is with collective benefit is that once you start saying I want to pay into collective benefit, but get out in proportion to what I put in, is that you disrupt the whole idea'

But that is exactly what has happened, because the elephant in the room about welfare has not been addressed by the progressives. The public has lost faith in some of the welfare system. They see people getting benefits that they think should not, they hear of people living in Belgravia where rent costs £4000 a week of public money, when they can't afford to heat their homes or run their cars due to increasing fuel costs.

People do believe that there really are "shirkers" even though New Labour et al refuse to address these things. That is why New Labour did so poorly in Eastleigh even though the Coalition is so unpopular.

The welfare reforms are partly about increasing checks in order to restore faith in the contributory system, because people feel they are being "squeezed" to pay for some people who are taking the piss - the type of disco dancers reported on in Daily Mail articles who calim they have bad backs. People down the pub really believe that some of this is going on.

H'mm. I agree with Promoted. Raise wages. Don't cut benefits. That is nasty, vindictive, cruel and unnatural, imo. It's been shown, time and again that the vast majority of people on benefits are there as a last resort, are in work and struggling. Why make things even harder for them? How can you (we) bear to do that?

'Didn't I see today that borrowing is 33 billion more under the coalition than it was under labour??'

Yes, because they are paying more unemployment benefits because their econonmic policy is not yet working. They are not prepared to cut those payments further, so they have to borrow more.

at all the talk about surpluses

Retired people are living longer so are drawing benefits for longer. The baby boomers are retiring and large families are out of fashion. Net effect? The proportion of people contributing/receiving is slowly getting worse.

We cannot continue without wholesale changes to the system.

'But if the people agree that cuts need to be made, why would the govt need to spin it?'

They are useless at spinning it. But they have to try to spin it, because New Labour does nothing else but spin against the Tories with their tricks about "tax cuts for millionaires" and "our of touch toffs".

The Tories can't just sit back and let New Labour spin on the BBC all night, so they have to try and spin. But they are useless at it and have a "nasty party" "uncaring" image, but even with allof those disadvantages, they will still win in the final analysis because the public dislike them but agree with them.

?? How do we know that benefit claimants aren't largely people who have formerly contributed or who will contribute in the future? The trouble is with collective benefit is that once you start saying I want to pay into collective benefit, but get out in proportion to what I put in, is that you disrupt the whole idea, its like saying 'we all contribute to the heating bill, but when I'm out I want the heating off' its crazy.

Solo, the Tories are useless spinners. Osborne is booed and not many people seem to like Duncan Smith. There is no decent spin from the Tories. They are losing in the opinion polls. But when the time comes to vote, what appears to be their weakness now, their lack of ability to spin their message, will paradoxically be their strength, because even though the public don't like it or like Osborne or Duncan Smith, they will still vote for them, because deep down they agree that cuts need to be made.

by the way he is saying 'make work pay' - presumably trying to sound like what he is doing is making work a real incentive by encouraging employers to pay a wage that is livable on and an incentive to come off benefits.

He is comparing benefits with work and trying to say that if you work you will be better off, but he is doing that by only fiddling with one side of the equation - reducing benefits. The impact that has is absolutely tiny - better would be to encourage businesses to offer jobs that will motivate people to apply for them because it will be better than the 'minimum the government has decided you can live on'.

If employers aren't offering jobs at a wage that competes with this shockingly low benchmark then that is where the fire needs to be concentrated. A tiny increase in wages at the bottom end would free up spending, reduce the negative psycholgical spiral we are in, and allow small businesses who rely on employees buying stuff to survive would also benefit.. and be able to pay better wages..

Its shocking that this virtuous cycle is being disregared in favour of ideology. I hope I am wrong, but it keeps looking like this. Didn't I see today that borrowing is 33 billion more under the coalition than it was under labour??

I think Promoted has teh wrong emphasis.

'the poor are not the people who are using the welfare budget - its mostly middle class pensioners with higher life expectancy who are spending the welfare budget'

That may be teh case, but it does not matter to the public, because the key fact that the public agrees with is that the pensioners have paid in all their lives they have contributed all their lives. New Labour does not care for teh pensioners, but the public believe that the pensioners are more deserving than young people with 10 kids on a benefit lifestyle. That is teh harsh reality of what the public really think and that is what Osborne tells the workers about the shirkers. Unless New Labour can speak for the majority, they will lose the public vote.

I'm getting a bit sleepy here, but it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. If the truth is unpalatable, ie not what the public wants, and if the public are not stupid, why can't they see through the spin? Because if they did see through it they wouldn't vote for a govt that was doing things they didn't want, would they?

But if the people agree that cuts need to be made, why would the govt need to spin it?

Sorry, a bit picky, probably. Don't answer if you don't want to.

I don't agree with your bottom-up view of things anyway. I think the govt invests so much time and money into spinning precisely because they think they can shape public opinion. They listen to us, but only so that they can refute our arguments or scheme against us.

'So the Daily Mail is the one and only speaker of truth to power?'

No the power od teh Oxbridge educated Etonians and Primrose Hill progressives. They wouldn't be seen dead reading the Daily Mail and they disagree with nearly everything it says on climate change, overseas aid and everything else. But the Daily Mail is teh speaker of truth of majority public opinion (inclding teh workers in teh high-vis vests).

On the news today, it said that the number one cut that the public wanted was in "overseas aid". The Daily Mail reflects that view, it does not lead it, but the Primnrose Hill progressives and power recoil in horror at those type of Daily Mail headlines that reflect public opinion.

Ever sonce the pasty tax