Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit

[johnny on the spot]

Chris Bryant.

 

[SWP's back]

So why should you be penalized before you have had an accident.

That doesn't make any sense fella.

 

[Lucky13]

good stuff

yeah probably the best so far.

Thanks!

It amazes me how people will vote against their own economic interests. I actually don't fully blame Thatcher and her ilk, they are free to have their ideology and at anytime she and her party could've been voted out of office. Probably the biggest failure was that of the Labour party and left wing politics. During Thatcher's disastrous Premiership, the left failed to articulate and have a Leader that could genuinely get a majority (under our system anyway) or rally people around social democratic politics. Unfortunately millions of working class people suffered the consequences and they and their children/grandchildren still are today.

I personally am a socialist and I believe in the German economic model and I think the UK should integrate more into the European way then the current obsession with the American economy. I'm really encouraged with the direction the Labour party is moving in. The appointment of Jon Cruddas by Ed Miliband will hopefully see some genuinely social democratic policies being put to the electorate.

As a socialist do you think working class people should own their own homes?

 

[deynaskaz]

So why should you be penalized before you have had an accident.

That doesn't make any sense fella.

What im saying is if for instance the premium was reduced to say 1k,on the basis that if you then had a claim it would then rise to 4k instantly. If you didnt make a claim then jobs a goodun and in turn this would be an incentive to drive more carefully .

 

[intheknow!]

If we are resting our hopes on Ed Milliband we are well up the creek without a paddle.

Unfortunately i fear your right talk about picking the wrong brother he makes Michael Foot and his duffel coat look dynamic.

Don't be so sure. It will be almost impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority. No governing party has ever increased it's share of the vote in subsequent elections. Cameron failed to win a majority last time and only got 36% of the vote, so history shows he is unlikely to increase that. The spectacular collapse of the Lib Dems means about 30% have come 'home to Labour' already, so the minimum Labour will get will be around 35%. The way the votes are distributed means that Labour has an inbuilt advantage. This is because Conservatives pile up votes in their traditional heartlands where as Labour's votes is more dispersed meaning that if Labour and the Tories had the same percentage of the vote Labour would actually have a few more seats. Also the Conservatives are becoming a Southern English party. They will have large losses in Northern England, Wales and they only have 1 MP left in Scotland anyway. The next election will be the easiest for Labour to win than at anytime since the SDP split.

 

[SWP's back]

So why should you be penalized before you have had an accident.

That doesn't make any sense fella.

What im saying is if for instance the premium was reduced to say 1k,on the basis that if you then had a claim it would then rise to 4k instantly. If you didnt make a claim then jobs a goodun and in turn this would be an incentive to drive more carefully .

OK so lets say everyone under 23 pays £1k instead of, lets say £2k on average. That then means that the underwriters have taken in half as much in premiums then they normally would have but the claims history is still the same, and now instead of either making a small profit or breaking even, they are now making a huge loss and go out of business.

 

[nelsons willie]

If we are resting our hopes on Ed Milliband we are well up the creek without a paddle.

Unfortunately i fear your right talk about picking the wrong brother he makes Michael Foot and his duffel coat look dynamic.

Don't be so sure. It will be almost impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority. No governing party has ever increased it's share of the vote in subsequent elections. Cameron failed to win a majority last time and only got 36% of the vote, so history shows he is unlikely to increase that. The spectacular collapse of the Lib Dems means about 30% have come 'home to Labour' already, so the minimum Labour will get will be around 35%. The way the votes are distributed means that Labour has an inbuilt advantage. This is because Conservatives pile up votes in their traditional heartlands where as Labour's votes is more dispersed meaning that if Labour and the Tories had the same percentage of the vote Labour would actually have a few more seats. Also the Conservatives are becoming a Southern English party. They will have large losses in Northern England, Wales and they only have 1 MP left in Scotland anyway. The next election will be the easiest for Labour to win than at anytime since the SDP split.

dont get clever now.ease yourself in.pretend you dont know what your talking about from time to time.some on here have been feigning fuckwitery for years

 

[mcmanus]

The irony of the people who support and lionise Thatcher, is that they are the ones who moan most about welfare and demand endless crackdowns on 'welfare lifestyles'. Yet it was their beloved Thatcher who created these 'welfare lifestyles'. In the 70's 'welfarism' was not an issue, working class people (men in particular), on the whole, had easy access jobs that allowed them to support and provide for a family. Yes sometimes these Industries were subsidised by the state but people had gainful employment and communities were strong. Dole existed but there was no Incapacity or the myriad of benefits there are now.

In the 80's Thatchers economic policy was based on the de-Industrialisation of Britain and to move us to a free market economy based largely on services and finance. This meant the destruction of the very jobs that working class communities (again mainly men) were sustained on. Interestingly Germany took the opposite view and decided to stick with manufacturing but through Government investment and crucially subsidy moved to a more high quality and high tech economy.

As this strategy was set in motion the inevitable happened, mass unemployment in Northern England, Scotland, Wales (Industrial areas). In order to massage the unemployment figures, Incapacity/the sick was created as well as Income support and the Dole was retained for Job Seekers. It was Thatcher's Government that created welfare as we now know it. If you look at the most deprived areas in England, Scotland and Wales where there is now inter-generational unemployment, you will see these are the very people and communities destroyed by Thatcher's deindustrialisation policy.

Unemployment was an intentional policy of Thatcher's. The Conservatives believe unemployment is a 'price worth paying' (quoting Norman Lamont). That is why it was her Government that created the welfare system her supporters now demonize. For Tories and their supporters in Big business a certain level of unemployment is a good thing. If you have 10 jobs and 10 workers, the power is with the worker, they can demand good wages etc but if you have 10 jobs and 100 workers, the power is with the employers. A large Labour or expanded Labour market with high unemployment means a cheaper, more compliant, fearful workforce.

A full hour and not one Thatcher apologist has taken you to task. Well done sir.

 

[intheknow!]

yeah probably the best so far.

Thanks!

It amazes me how people will vote against their own economic interests. I actually don't fully blame Thatcher and her ilk, they are free to have their ideology and at anytime she and her party could've been voted out of office. Probably the biggest failure was that of the Labour party and left wing politics. During Thatcher's disastrous Premiership, the left failed to articulate and have a Leader that could genuinely get a majority (under our system anyway) or rally people around social democratic politics. Unfortunately millions of working class people suffered the consequences and they and their children/grandchildren still are today.

I personally am a socialist and I believe in the German economic model and I think the UK should integrate more into the European way then the current obsession with the American economy. I'm really encouraged with the direction the Labour party is moving in. The appointment of Jon Cruddas by Ed Miliband will hopefully see some genuinely social democratic policies being put to the electorate.

As a socialist do you think working class people should own their own homes?

LOL! Of course I do. 'All property is left' and confiscation of wealth ideology is actually anarchist/communist not socialist. The real problem now is that working class people don't have a chance of owning property such as housing because of the failure to build enough to meet demand, has resulted in vastly inflated prices and lack of available mortgages due to the banking crisis and recession.

I actually should've said I'm a Social Democrat. I believe in the advancement of working class people and everyone apart from the wealthiest elites. I believe in equality, the best societies are the ones that are the most equal. If you look at the Scandanavian model and the German or Dutch economic models, I believe they deliver the best outcomes for all. America and Britain are two of the most unequal Countries in the world, with wealth going from bottom to top, not the other way around.

Don't let the media brainwash about 'evil socialism', where they always invoke the fmr Soviet Union to disuade anyone from voting in their own interests or at least make people vote for the continuation of failed economic policies.

 

[deynaskaz]

That doesn't make any sense fella.

What im saying is if for instance the premium was reduced to say 1k,on the basis that if you then had a claim it would then rise to 4k instantly. If you didnt make a claim then jobs a goodun and in turn this would be an incentive to drive more carefully .

OK so lets say everyone under 23 pays £1k instead of, lets say £2k on average. That then means that the underwriters have taken in half as much in premiums then they normally would have but the claims history is still the same, and now instead of either making a small profit or breaking even, they are now making a huge loss and go out of business.

But that theory doesn't make it right ,perhaps the government could use the 2 billion they save on housing benefits to supplement the shortfall,or then again they could use it to increase there petty cash budget.