The Conservatives

[MammaBrussels]

I cannot believe someone, even someone in the Conservative Party, would say this.

How can anyone support them?

Sorry love but I'm not pissed off in the slightest.

Quick frankly the entitled to every thing for free view is rife on here.

There I spelt grammar wrong just to make you feel better.

Your views are utterly disgusting, you know.

Sorry love.

That's all right dear.

As usual the name calling begins when the left lose the debate.

I have no problems with income differences. If the rich are richer the poor tend to do better too.

I have a feeling I know the answer to this question - why do the poor do better when the rich are rich?

Please also provide some statistics as to how people are "generally better off".

Mean and median incomes are falling in real terms, this is especially true in the bottom deciles. They are further forecast, ceteris paribus, to fall by 2.6% during this parliament. The biggest fall in income will occur in decile 1 (the poorest 10%) who can expect their incomes to fall by 7.8%. Decile 10, can expect their income to rise (the only group to see an income rise).

How on earth does that provide an incentive to the 90% of the population that will see their incomes fall?

Novack, do please report me for saying 'dear'.

I never wished any ill wind to 2shoes. It is her who said the cuts were threatening her child's life which we all know is not true. No ones life is being threatened by death due to cuts.

People are still far better off today than they were in the 70's 80's etc and just because the last few years has seen a downturn the gains are still there compared to previous times.

Labour squandered billions before the global credit crisis and left the UK with the cupboards bare relying on debt instead of saving for the downturn/bust that comes after the boom they made.

The less wealthy in the UK are far better of than the real poor of this world. If you feel strongly about any issue not being funded you are all at liberty to support the charities of your choice.

I have never understood this entitled view to unearned income that so many in this country seem to think is their right.

Welfare state should only be for the genuinely vulnerable

Do you know what, I think most people agree on that point. The problems come when we try to define genuinely vulnerable.

and you all know that but the UK unlike most of Europe has the feckless underclass who prefer to milk the system and live off of everyone else.

Anecdotally, we have huge problems with Les Chomuers in Belgium, same in France. There's some data on the OECD website that bears analysis but I'm on my phone & can't open the documents. From what I can remember, the replacement ratio (ratio of benefits: income) actually indicates that, among certain groups, the UK benefit system is not very generous at all.

I sound like such a statistics geek

i am still waiting for examples of how the Conservatives are always better at looking after the poor. Apart from rhetoric re trickle down economics I havent seen any factual examples to support this statement. And I dont just mean between the not-so-closet-neo-liberals New Labour and the Coalition. Go back to the last century, am interested to know. I would cite the creation of the NHS and the introduction of the minimum wage as just 2 reasons why I think the opposite. Oh and I am not one of the "feckless poor" you so despise. I am a self employed, high tax paying, hard-working, non-benefit claiming, part of a traditional nuclear family with a thankfully healthy ds who just happens to think there but for the grace of God....

And of course there are poorer in the world than those in the UK! Can we look at it relatively and at least compare like for like.

Christ. Some nasty people on this thread - and a lot of myths still being perpetuated.

JobSeekers Allowance is a pittance in this country and social welfare spending, compared with most of europe is in the low average range:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2010.00765.x/pdf

The number of people of people claiming Long-term Benefits has declined drastically in the past decade:

Using figures from the Office of National Statistics, it seems that the number of people claiming unemployment benefits long-term has fallen ten fold over the last decade.

Of the 1.5m people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in January 2011, just 0.3 per cent had been claiming for five years or more - 4,220 people.

www.channel4.com/news/welfare-reform-is-benefits-culture-a-myth

Of those 1.5 million people, how many have been claiming different benefits over the last 5 years?

How much do you think Jobseekers Allowance should be? How much should we spend on welfare above and beyond what we currently spend? Where should we get the money from to pay for it?

The conservatives are good for people who want to work hard and get on in life, whatever their status is. They are not good for people who just want to get by and do the bare minimum.

Novack-

People are still far better off today than they were in the 70's 80's etc and just because the last few years has seen a downturn the gains are still there compared to previous times.

No. The majority of the population (80%) have seen their wages basically stagnate for three decades. They are no better off in real terms than they were in 1980. The top 20% saw some real-term gains, with almost all of it going to the top 5% or 1%.

Because the cost of living has increased, partially thanks for neo-liberal policies of privitisation, people tried to maintain their standard of living against stagnating wages by taking on debt.

This was encouraged by the economic elite, as they thought it was a good way to simultaneously suppress wages, make profits skyrocket, and keep consumer spending going strong.

So households took on debt to stay afloat and pay the bills against rising costs. Corporate profits soared. It was all a huge debt bubble.

Now the debt bubble has popped, and nobody has any money to spend, as people have little or nothing to spend. The problem isn't a supply side problem. It's a demand side problem. There is no demand.

Labour squandered billions before the global credit crisis and left the UK with the cupboards bare relying on debt instead of saving for the downturn/bust that comes after the boom they made.

Labour didn't make the boom, it was a global credit bubble caused and facilitated by the banking system. Secondly, Labour spending on public services was not that large. The deficit was at 3% at the time of the crisis. If it was at 0%, we would still have an > 8% deficit on our hands.

The less wealthy in the UK are far better of than the real poor of this world. If you feel strongly about any issue not being funded you are all at liberty to support the charities of your choice.

I have never understood this entitled view to unearned income that so many in this country seem to think is their right.

Wtf are you talking about? The banks received hundreds of billions of pounds of free 'unearned income' from the taxpayer that they needed to survive after causing a global financial crisis.

Why aren't you complaining on the banks? Rather than the .5% of GDP spent on benefit fraud in this country?

The conservatives are good for people who want to work hard and get on in life

They are not good for me. I work hard. I am well qualified.

I do wonder if they are only credible because they have a weird little deal going with the press. But possibly not much longer?

Josephine JSA should be 60% of the median income after housing costs.

Josephine-

Of those 1.5 million people, how many have been claiming different benefits over the last 5 years?

Eh? It just said .3 percent!

How much do you think Jobseekers Allowance should be?

Enough so that people can survive on it. JSA is not a survivable income. I don't know anyone who has ever taken JSA who hasn't also had some support from friends or family. It's just not doable.

How much should we spend on welfare above and beyond what we currently spend? Where should we get the money from to pay for it?

We should spend as much as we need in order to make sure that people can afford to live. We can reduce this amount by reducing unemployment, as well as increasing wages - as many people who receive some sort of welfare from the state are actually working poor. They have jobs, but they are paid such a shitty amount that they can't afford to live.

The conservatives are good for people who want to work hard and get on in life, whatever their status is. They are not good for people who just want to get by and do the bare minimum.

No, they're really not. The Conservatives are good for people who are already rich and most likely own property. They are not good for anyone who wants to work hard and 'get on in life' or better themselves financially.

Every thing they do, every policy they make, and every thing they say shows an antagonism, if not hatred, for the poorest and most vulnerable, and for any kind of social solidarity amongst people.

Amongst Western Capitalist countries, you want to know where social mobility is greatest? Denmark. Yes, that socialist country. You want to know where it is lowest? The United States. Yes, that free-market Capitalist country. You want to know where it is very low? England.

Thanks to the systematic attacks on education, health, welfare, and opportunities, and thanks to the privitisation agenda which has been dominant over the past few decades, if you're born in a poor family, you will most likely remain poor. If you were born into a rich family, you will be rich.

The Tories have always been the party of wealth and privilege. They are not the party of the majority of the public. You're fooling no one except yourself.

There really are some selfish and bigoted people around.

This is especially for Xenia our resident super brain who is obsessed with IQ

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

"Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study"

Novak, why do you think health and education is a waste of your hard earned cash?

1833 The Factory Act, intended to improve conditions for children working in factories and introduced a compulsory two hours schooling each day for children, although in reality there was often no easy access to education for these children. Some factory owners ran schools inside their own factories and there were also some church schools.1870 Education Act, the state did not take responsibility for education until this Act which attempted to provide elementary education for all children aged 5-13. It created the first local school boards which could compel attendance. BY 1870 children were no longer working in factories.

The reason that by 1870 parents were "compelled" to send their children to school was because the children of poor workers were apt to cause trouble when not engaged in work in the factories and not supervised by their parents, both of whom had to work in excess of 70 hours a week.

Of course we could return to a situation where the poor are denied a basic education but I am inclined to think the recent riots in London, would look like a picnic compared to what we would experience then.

Capitalism actually creates the social conditions under which a welfare state must intervene Before the industrial revolution, prior to the factories acts and the advent of state education (our first example of welfare) there was little need for a welfare state.

Capitalism, even if it were neutered and regulated is so full of contradictions that eventually it will fail. the sooner the better.

I work hard and get on with life and I think your statement is nonsense Josephine. I also know lots of others who work equally hard and aren't as fortunate because they cant command a decent salary due to their market shrinking. And others who were hard working and now can't find a job despite months of looking following redundancy. Still others who can't work due to having to be full time carers for their children due to sn. And a good friend who hasnt been able to work for a year due to cancer. Are they also the feckless undeserving poor?

Josephine regardless of how much anyone thinks Jobseekers' Allowance should be, can you give a detailed analysis of how Workfare helps the economy grow?

Because I don't think it does and have given my reasons a number of times.

I've asked you an equal number of times to outline your justification.

Keep dodging me and I'll think it's because you're talking nonsense.

The only thing left to decide is whether you know it or not.

The Dept for Culture Media & Sport's own document "2012 Diamond Jubilee Extra Bank Holiday Impact Assessment" suggests the extra bank holiday has cost the economy £1.2bn. Taxpayers like me give £30m p.a. to the Queen.

£11bn for the Olympics, anyone? Yes, social security for our citizens is obviously unaffordable.

Oh, and 'claiming different benefits'? Care to elaborate? I'm always keen to hear from people who actually know about the benefits system, as opposed to just parroting slurs they have read in the Daily Mail.

Moon, do you think the royal family are an unaffordable luxury?

Absolutely, Mini. Although 'luxury' is too nice a word, I think.