If you can't reduce politics to a few short sentences you completely fail to understand politics or human natures so yes the same concepts will come up again and again

mrjonno wrote:If you can't reduce politics to a few short sentences you completely fail to understand politics or human natures so yes the same concepts will come up again and again

Short sentences are pointless, you don't understand that the majority of words fuck over the minority of words so if you make shorter sentences you have less words to fuck over because it's in their best interest.

mrjonno wrote:If you can't reduce politics to a few short sentences you completely fail to understand politics or human natures so yes the same concepts will come up again and again

Wait, you think politics is twitter?

Wait, you think politics is twitter?

Yes , basically a cross between twitter and a punch up after closing time down the pub with only a limited amount of rational thought behind it. If someone has to think about your policy (as opposed to just feeling it be right) they almost certainty won't vote for you in any great numbers

Voters are pointless because they can't read and there is no working class we're all rich and only the only ones who aren't rich aren't viable and we shouldn't keep them alive because there's more of us and it's in our best interest... battle... fight... tribes etc

mrjonno wrote:So easy to blame government, the reason their is a lack of housing in the UK is because the people who do have a house (a majority) are quite happy to be living in over priced houses and don't want to see the price of them collapse so fight tooth and nail whenever there is any major housing developments suggested.

Bollocks!
The reason why there is a housing shortage is because a certain Tory cow and her sycophantic followers reneged on the promise to allow councils to replace sold council houses on a one-to-one basis.

For people who do have houses on this forum how much are you prepared to see them drop in value so others can afford them?

More bollocks!
I live in and own a house and will probably die in it. I couldn't give a fuck about whether or not 'someone else' could afford it. I don't give a damn if it loses or increases in value because of an artificial contrived market system.

The housing market is pure democracy (its definitely not a free market) in action with the majority totally screwing over the minority because its in their interest to do so

I see. So this 'dog-eat-dog' situation is, er, 'pure democracy'. Gimme a benevolent dictator any time...

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:If you can't reduce politics to a few short sentences you completely fail to understand politics or human natures so yes the same concepts will come up again and again

Wait, you think politics is twitter?

I remember reading some research (well, I think I remember; it might have been on the radio, or the telly, or perhaps I merely dreamed it?) that the political soundbite had fallen from c.30 seconds in the early 70s to about 8 seconds by the late 90s - to now consist of less than 20 words.

Anyway, on teh Buggy, the tax gap remains as wide as ever with borrowing set to be extended to cover shortfall. How this fits with Chancellor's stated moral imperative of making people live within their means I'm not quite sure.

The Budget today.
I fail to see how reducing the benefits of the disabled found fit for work helps the disabled be cured in any way shape or form and so diminish the need for extra money (eg to keep the heating on for whilst paralysed, or pay the cost for medication if not on the exempt list, or pay for I don’t know but whatever it was that made being disabled meant higher costs of living was compared to being not disabled) whilst being helped into work.

Anyway, on teh Buggy, the tax gap remains as wide as ever with borrowing set to be extended to cover shortfall. How this fits with Chancellor's stated moral imperative of making people live within their means I'm not quite sure.

I don't think it does. Seems it is more a if you can't afford it do without we really don't care budget. Victorian values are back.

Today's budget was sick. Not the trendy-yoof meaning, either.

Peter Brown wrote:The Budget today.
I fail to see how reducing the benefits of the disabled found fit for work helps the disabled be cured in any way shape or form and so diminish the need for extra money (eg to keep the heating on for whilst paralysed, or pay the cost for medication if not on the exempt list, or pay for I don’t know but whatever it was that made being disabled meant higher costs of living was compared to being not disabled) whilst being helped into work.

Anyway, on teh Buggy, the tax gap remains as wide as ever with borrowing set to be extended to cover shortfall. How this fits with Chancellor's stated moral imperative of making people live within their means I'm not quite sure.

I don't think it does. Seems it is more a if you can't afford it do without we really don't care budget. Victorian values are back.

Organisations representing disabled people campaigned for 30 years to get the extra costs of disability recognised by government, as it finally was with the introduction of Disability Living Allowance under the Last Tory government. Now, while those who already qualified for DLA had the money insulated from recent changes in the system, if you were reassessed in 2012-13 and in receipt of it that extra payment is was taken off your Employment and Support Allowance (ESA, formerly Incapacity Benefit), wiping out at a stroke both the a much needed benefit along with the official recognition of those extra costs. It seems that from the Budget today many in the 'support group' for ESA--those who've already done the ATOS hoop-jumping and box-ticking exercise and were considered disabled enough to have the slimmest of employment propsect--are to be moved over into the 'work-group', which is paid at a lower rate and involves similar conditionalities to Job Seekers Allowance. I presume that once those who have been moved onto the lower rate but who fail to find employment (those not even Poundland will want!) will probably be moved back over to the 'support group', or the PIP equivalent, or whatever it might be by then(?), but whereas their payments were guaranteed not to change during the recent transformation they will now be deemed to be making a fresh claim and, if successful in their application, will quality under the new rules brought in over the last 3 years. If this happens then all it will be is a clever accounting ploy to cut people's level of support in the guise of a work-related assessment and support scheme. I mean, it's pretty clear by now that the Tories aren't really interested in getting the disabled 'back to work' because, for one, unemployment among the disabled has run at a steady c.80% for the last 2 decades, and two, if disabled people don't have the support or can't afford to take part in normal social and community life then nobody will notice they exist. It's a win-win for the Tories.

Though I wouldn't wish a sever disability on anyone, I think it would be most enlightening if Osborne and his chums could be persuaded to live a week effectively paralysed from the waist down, or blind, or unable to make rational sense of the world around them (and don't say they have that already, you know what I mean) for a week.

In the meantime Ozzy has effectively trumpeted a deficit defying dividend for the well-off by announcing a huge hike in the inheritance tax threshold while adding further complexity into the system. It tells you all you need to know about this government really, specially when you consider how that's being paid for, and by whom.

Personally, I'm interested to find out exactly how it's said that the UK spends 7% of the global welfare budget, as the Tories are claiming, and what exactly is the context and fiscal relevance of that assertion.

ronmcd wrote:

So Treasury genuinely discussed whether mothers of three should receive child benefit if they were raped

That's probably a civil servant actualy doing their job (I doubt if a politican would have picked up on that of detail)

Alan B wrote:

mrjonno wrote:So easy to blame government, the reason their is a lack of housing in the UK is because the people who do have a house (a majority) are quite happy to be living in over priced houses and don't want to see the price of them collapse so fight tooth and nail whenever there is any major housing developments suggested.

Bollocks!
The reason why there is a housing shortage is because a certain Tory cow and her sycophantic followers reneged on the promise to allow councils to replace sold council houses on a one-to-one basis.

For people who do have houses on this forum how much are you prepared to see them drop in value so others can afford them?

More bollocks!
I live in and own a house and will probably die in it. I couldn't give a fuck about whether or not 'someone else' could afford it. I don't give a damn if it loses or increases in value because of an artificial contrived market system.

The housing market is pure democracy (its definitely not a free market) in action with the majority totally screwing over the minority because its in their interest to do so

I see. So this 'dog-eat-dog' situation is, er, 'pure democracy'. Gimme a benevolent dictator any time...

Yes I'm sure a few extra council houses are going to make any difference to the housing, the UK needs new cities not some more council sink estates (or any crap about brown field sites either)

The house I live in is my savings and retirement, if that drops in price significantly I lose everything . Selling it is almost certainly going to be needed to pay for old age care a well (will move to a care home or somewhere smaller)

The biggest weakness of democracy is exactly that its a dog eat dog environment , that not to say dictatorships are any better but it would be silly to pretend its not basically different groups trying to screw each other over.

Anyway its in my best interest that as few houses as possible are built , its in the interest of people who don't have a house that far more are built. While house owners outnumber non-house owners the situation won't change. Nothing to do with Tory or Labour party policy just human selfishness which in no way try to distance myself from (I rent my flat out in London and there is no such thing as too much rent if you arent' paying it)

mrjonno wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

So Treasury genuinely discussed whether mothers of three should receive child benefit if they were raped

That's probably a civil servant actualy doing their job (I doubt if a politican would have picked up on that of detail)

Ah well, if it was a civil servant ...

mrjonno wrote:

Yes I'm sure a few extra council houses are going to make any difference to the housing, the UK needs new cities not some more council sink estates (or any crap about brown field sites either)

The house I live in is my savings and retirement, if that drops in price significantly I lose everything . Selling it is almost certainly going to be needed to pay for old age care a well (will move to a care home or somewhere smaller)

The biggest weakness of democracy is exactly that its a dog eat dog environment , that not to say dictatorships are any better but it would be silly to pretend its not basically different groups trying to screw each other over.

Anyway its in my best interest that as few houses as possible are built , its in the interest of people who don't have a house that far more are built. While house owners outnumber non-house owners the situation won't change. Nothing to do with Tory or Labour party policy just human selfishness which in no way try to distance myself from (I rent my flat out in London and there is no such thing as too much rent if you arent' paying it)

It's like peering into the tortured mind of a suicidal estate agent.

Tories aren't really interested in getting the disabled 'back to work' because, for one, unemployment among the disabled has run at a steady c.80% for the last 2 decades, and two, if disabled people don't have the support or can't afford to take part in normal social and community life then nobody will notice they exist. It's a win-win for the Tories.

I certainly don't see something like a Poll Tax riot over this, so it is a win for the Daily Mail readers too.

With a budget like this it is no wonder Cameron few days ago backtracked on providing the benefit related suicide figures.

Anyway its in my best interest that as few houses as possible are built , its in the interest of people who don't have a house that far more are built.

Maybe not, as I gather getting a mortgages has become an unrealistic prospect for many who would have no problems before.

Way it is right now as I hear on LBC, you can pay rent high enough that a buy to let landlord can pay of his mortgage and have a bit left over but the bank won’t give you your own mortgage at that same monthly fee.

mrjonno wrote:

Alan B wrote:

mrjonno wrote:So easy to blame government, the reason their is a lack of housing in the UK is because the people who do have a house (a majority) are quite happy to be living in over priced houses and don't want to see the price of them collapse so fight tooth and nail whenever there is any major housing developments suggested.

Bollocks!
The reason why there is a housing shortage is because a certain Tory cow and her sycophantic followers reneged on the promise to allow councils to replace sold council houses on a one-to-one basis.

For people who do have houses on this forum how much are you prepared to see them drop in value so others can afford them?

More bollocks!
I live in and own a house and will probably die in it. I couldn't give a fuck about whether or not 'someone else' could afford it. I don't give a damn if it loses or increases in value because of an artificial contrived market system.

The housing market is pure democracy (its definitely not a free market) in action with the majority totally screwing over the minority because its in their interest to do so

I see. So this 'dog-eat-dog' situation is, er, 'pure democracy'. Gimme a benevolent dictator any time...

Yes I'm sure a few extra council houses are going to make any difference to the housing, the UK needs new cities not some more council sink estates (or any crap about brown field sites either)

The house I live in is my savings and retirement, if that drops in price significantly I lose everything . Selling it is almost certainly going to be needed to pay for old age care a well (will move to a care home or somewhere smaller)

The biggest weakness of democracy is exactly that its a dog eat dog environment , that not to say dictatorships are any better but it would be silly to pretend its not basically different groups trying to screw each other over.

Anyway its in my best interest that as few houses as possible are built , its in the interest of people who don't have a house that far more are built. While house owners outnumber non-house owners the situation won't change. Nothing to do with Tory or Labour party policy just human selfishness which in no way try to distance myself from (I rent my flat out in London and there is no such thing as too much rent if you arent' paying it)

Houses are pointless because house owners are a tribe that hate non house owners and their tribe and because there's more they win so non house owners will stay non house owners and that's right cause it's in their interest.

You can mock as much as you want, the local residents (landlords) where I lived in London fought tooth and nail to block the building of new houses , in public they gave environmental causes but in private we were quite open it would reduce rental income if more became available.

We like everyone else were entirely selfish looking after our own financial interests , very easy to go on about fairness when you are at the bottom in society lets face it you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Just remember most people are not at the bottom and will do anything to avoid ending up there including keeping others there