Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit

[Mike D]

Because this assumes the idea that there is a "right way" of living life, which is incredibly arrogant, presumptuous and downright offensive. What is "right" for an 18 year old kid on a council estate will not be "right" for a 23 year old living in Bowden, and vice versa.

No, everyone can live how they wish, it's just that those that wish to have children and not work will have to fund themselves as opposed to relying on the taxpayer to do it and rightly so.

Great idea but what do we do with the children let them die in the street if you can come up with the answer to that one i might even vote for call me Dave myself.

Or we could all go back to the 50's like the proposed education policy of scrapping GCSE's. Then we'll force these young wippersnappers into abortion clinics or shove them into workhouses along with there sprogs. Lets being back floggings and under 25 year old unfortunate enough to be being made homeless through no fault of there own, give them a good thrashing publically and send them back to the abuse they have tried to get away from.

Lets not all forget it was Thatcher who created this culture of benefits when she closed down the mines how fitting it should be that her reincarnation is a making an even bigger mess of it. Cameron and his posh chums really do need to wake up and smell the coffee and instead of doing trying to do lots of things very badly get 1 thing right!!!!

 

[intheknow!]

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.

Miss (soon to be Mrs), as it goes!

Girls know about economics too!
xx

 

[Challenger1978]

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.

SWP its even been on BBC watch dog that the Car insurance companies are making record profits since the crazy increases in premiums over the last two years. I'm sure I read somewhere that just Admirals profits, are up 57% since 2010.

How do you explain that if they operate at a loss or very little profit ?

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Miss (soon to be Mrs), as it goes!

Girls know about economics too!
xx

there's too many women on this forum for my liking


;)

 

[nelsons willie]

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.

Miss (soon to be Mrs), as it goes!

Girls know about economics too!
xx

i knew you was a lady all along

 

[Challenger1978]

i knew you was a lady all along

 

[SWP's back]

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.

Or help reduce the deficit.....

You'll find we all felt we were ripped off when we first started driving fella. No one gave a fuck then and few will now.

And it's not "a theory" it is just what happens. When someone makes a claim for whiplash, that £3,000 is paid for by the "at fault" drivers insurer along with the cost of the damage to both cars and legal fee's of both sides. Making it a claim of about 10-12k. This happens over and over again and if the underwriters fuck up and charge too little then the insurer goes out of business. It's a competitive market and market pressure keeps the premiums down as low as will allow a profit (or less than bankruptable loss).<br /><br />-- Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:50 pm --<br /><br />

Thatcher who created this culture of benefits when she closed down the mines

Fuck me, how many million did they employ?

 

[intheknow!]

i knew you was a lady all along

LOL!

I have to confess that my views on Thatcher's economic policies as compared to the economy of the 70's, is through education and theory work as I was born in 1989.

 

[SWP's back]

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.

SWP its even been on BBC watch dog that the Car insurance companies are making record profits since the crazy increases in premiums over the last two years. I'm sure I read somewhere that just Admirals profits, are up 57% since 2010.

How do you explain that if they operate at a loss or very little profit ?

Oh ignore me then, what I said was true when I worked in underwriting, but that was over a decade ago whilst still at Uni. If it's changed then fuck them the money grabbing cunts. (though after my theft claim a few years back I am still up about £20k overall).

Edit: Just looked, Admiral's "record" profits were 13.9% of turnover. Cunts. Though still not a massive increase on what was seen as good when I was there (the 4-8% I meantioned earlier).

 

[intheknow!]

Thatcher who created this culture of benefits when she closed down the mines

Fuck me, how many million did they employ?

Thatcher's de-Industrialisation policy targeted mines but also: ship building, iron-ore works, car manufacturing etc (the clue is Industry). The full works. How can you not know this? I thought you support Thatcher, no?