tonyh29 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 David Milliband - make a comeback and win the next GE. What a story that would be. only if you still believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 think ed balls will be next labour leader if its not david He's part of the problem...... in particular Ed Balls consistently blocked ANY regulation of the City of the London, coddling both Blair & Brown to win the fight with Wall Street to turn London into the laxest regulation, No1 Financial hub in the world. I am someone with NO interest in poloitics at all. However I cannot beleive what is being allowed to happen under our very noses. This is NO longer democracy .....this is government by the Oligarchy in the shape of the Banksters. On the same day the house of Lords is debating benefit caps - Vince Cable is limply proposing legislation to curb the pay of the Corporate masters. AS IF!!! The latest strategic war manoeveur against the 99% is to cap the housing benefit so that places like Westminster will be cleared of the peasants... making way for of course, more of the elite to move in - driving up prices. In the same week that it's announced RBS's Chairman is to receive £1.8M bonus. I was told the other day that Barclay's employees have been told not to spend their bonuses this year overtly but just to drip spend it, so that other people don't notice they've had one.... they've been told that alot of people are very angry with the banks already! I wonder why? These videos (2nd parts especially) might seem OTT but if a coming "bank holiday" really happens, then ALL of us are going to be deeply effected in our pockets and yet again the banksters and the ruling elite will profit enormously. "On the Edge" has now been banned by Rupert Murdoch's owned news mafia but you can still watch episodes online. This interview with Gonzola Lira must have made a few squirm Gonzola Lira interview THIS is government OF the banks, BY the Banks and what's more FOR the banks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 It's not housing benefit per se that they're cutting Julie, just total benefits over £26,000. Which until about 6 years ago, is a sum greater than I earned and still managed to support my wife and daughter, and pay a mortgage etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It's not housing benefit per se that they're cutting Julie, just total benefits over £26,000. Which until about 6 years ago, is a sum greater than I earned and still managed to support my wife and daughter, and pay a mortgage etc. I think many families in the UK would be happy to live on £26K. It's only going to effect people who have to pay high rents. For once it will effect people living in houses in the more affluent areas of eg London. It just irks me to think that as a by product - the peasants will have to move out of these affluent areas into poorer lower rent areas - so the more of the elite can live closer to the City. No doubt of course the property prices & rents will rise in these areas as a consequence and then the riff raff will never be able to move back. Cuts have already gone through with tax credits etc AND what's more families with disabled children are to have their benefits cut in another shake up. I don't think anyone wants to see people scrounging on benefits it's just not nice to see genuine cases where possibly vunerable people are going to struggle. NO ONE seems to mention that both here and in the US.... we continue to hand out welfare benefits in the form of Quantative Easing by the bucket loads to the Banksters et al. Yet in both of these economic power houses.... the poorer are seeing their welfare benefits, pensions and standards of living eroded. Forcing people to become as Keiser terms them........"debt slaves to the Oligarchy" It's even worse in the US - there are now apparently estimated to be 1.5 Million homeless children in the US. When houses are respossessed in the US(forclosed) - families including those with children are pretty much on their own. Masses of empty properties eg in California, which now belong to the banks while more and more tent cities spring up. THIS in the richest economy in the world. If the $700Billion hand out by the US Fed to Wall Street after they let Lehman's fail - had instead been used to assist homeowners and their dodgy subprime mortgages, which the banks made billions on - they would have been out of recession by now. However THAT isn't what's required. What's required is that the elite get their bonus packages - come what may and to hell with everyone else! Bank of America and other lenders are now facing lawsuits in the US having been caught red handed alledgedly to boot...forging documents and pressurising judges to speed up foreclosures so that these assets improve their balance sheets. What they've got away with over in the US is being replicated in the UK and across Europe. An economy in turmoil with markets as volatile as a tropical storm. What's more - because the US & UK governments have FAILED to in anyway regulate the derivative markets LAST WEEK the City recorded it's highest level of derivative trading EVER! Do we hear even a whimper from the UK Government oppostion?...Erm no..... Labour are silent - while the CONDEMs are "IN IT TOGETHER" - shackled into silence by their paymaster generals on Wall St and the Square mile! Something is fundamentally JUST WRONG about all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It's not housing benefit per se that they're cutting Julie, just total benefits over £26,000. Which until about 6 years ago, is a sum greater than I earned and still managed to support my wife and daughter, and pay a mortgage etc. It's not 'just' total benefits over £26k that they are cutting 'per se', Risso. There has been a decrease in housing benefit from the average to the 30th percentile, as well as a cap on housing benefit in any area to a maximum of a certain amount (off the cuff, I cannot remember what it is). The £26k 'cap' includes 'benefits' that are still given to families with an income of up to what? £79k? I'll set my stall out as someone who doesn't agree with arbitrary caps in any environment (including bankers). Anything arbitrary is going to tend to be unfair and it's also going to tend to be silly. What the government is proposing (even if it is a populist success) isn't good and I'd accuse it of being ill thought out if I wasn't of the opinion that it was quite the contrary. It's an acknowledged policy that doesn't compare like with like (i.e. income with earnings and individual with household (the latter I don't believe though that has yet to be mentioned)) and is a flag bearer that plays to people's fears and to the immediate logic (something to which I fell susceptible) regarding cash benefits only going to those with a certain income. The 'hard working' family that has an earner or two earners who lose their job(s) (after however many years of working, 'doing the right thing' and paying in to the system) may well be hit most severely by an arbitrary cap. The problem with it being 'thought out' is that there is a great fear that it runs contradictorily with regards to other government policies - for instance the 'affordable rent' thang upon which housing associations will rely in order to attempt to at least maintain their level of housing stock, if not increase it. Add on to that the idea of extending and 'reenergizing' the right to buy - which would decrease the existing stock of social housing - and the government's (or Grant Shapps's) idea that all private accomodation is hunky dory and you start to see where this lot of rent seekers realize where their (and their mates') bread is buttered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I dont know this. Is this equivalent to £26000 gross or net pay. If it is net wouldn't that mean that it is the equivalent to someone earning about £35k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyjsg Posted January 24, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2012 It beggers belief that some people on here think that 26k after tax is not enough, its madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendelc Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 26k for not working . Sign me up ! Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 24, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2012 OK, nobody's biting. I'll go further: Yvette will be PM at the same time as Hilary Clinton is U.S. president. You heard it here first, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Yvette will be PM would have thought that A) Being married to the most loathsome figure in politics since John Prescott Flipping her house C) Claiming travel for the children on expenses would kill her bid in its tracks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 24, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2012 Yvette will be PM would have thought that A) Being married to the most loathsome figure in politics since John Prescott Flipping her house C) Claiming travel for the children on expenses would kill her bid in its tracks Electors have short memories. Wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Harman. She will win the Labour Party Leadership by defeating Cooper and Becket in a 3 way naked mud wrestiling competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I dont know this. Is this equivalent to £26000 gross or net pay. Neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 so where does the figure come from then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 so where does the figure come from then? Ministers. The bill says: (5) In this section the “relevant amount” is an amount specified in regulations. (6) The amount specified under subsection (5) is to be determined by reference to estimated average earnings. (7) In this section “estimated average earnings” means the amount which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represents at any time the average weekly earnings of a working household in Great Britain after deductions in respect of tax and national insurance contributions. (8) The Secretary of State may estimate such earnings in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit. But we are way off topic (something for which I realize I was greatly responsible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 you wouldn't be the first, done it loads of times myself. As for myself I dont think any of the front runners will get it. I think Ed will stay in place for a while and then a new name will appear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I dont know this. Is this equivalent to £26000 gross or net pay. If it is net wouldn't that mean that it is the equivalent to someone earning about £35k t beggers belief that some people on here think that 26k after tax is not enough, its madness. 26k for not working . Sign me up ! Madness. Amazing that some people just buy in completely to the drivel and sabre rattling of the Daily Mail. The Tory party spin, and the Lib Dems now have managed to go even further downward in right thinking peoples views at supporting this, would have you believe that this is a simple way to stop benefit cheats, when in reality it is nothing more than another attack on certain elements of society with no real regard to the fact that some of the most vulnerable will be severely hurt. The old adage of the "nasty party" is a live well and kicking those who it has seen for a long time as its enemies, i.e. the old poor and people not of a certain wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 The Tory party spin, and the Lib Dems now have managed to go even further downward in right thinking peoples views at supporting this YouGov found that 69% of British people, including two-thirds of Labour supporters, either support the Coalition's benefits cap of £26,000 per household or think it should be even stricter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 The old adage of the "nasty party" is a live well and kicking YouGov found (£) (PDF) that 69% of British people, including two-thirds of Labour supporters, either support the Coalition's benefits cap of £26,000 per household or think it should be even stricter. You may think that it's funny Tony, but for me it's actually quite obscene what they are doing. As Snowy has rightly pointed out the spin that is being fed to the gullible masses is nothing like what they are proposing to implement. The reality is that changes, built on vindictive ideals that the Tory party and its supporters have long held, will impact and hurt the most vulnerable. Not at all what the spin shit will have you believe. Maybe you find that funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Tory party and its supporters the clue was in the bold text look you scored another own goal don't go acting all indignant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts