The need to crack down on something would mean that someone else had allowed this situation to arise in the first place . I imagine that your anger and ire has previously been aimed fairly and squarely at the previous government?They're cracking down on jack shit,only thing they are good at is pulling the wool over the eyes of gullible halfwits and extorting money from hard working people and giving it to the bone idle and those that have no place to be here.
That’s a hell of a lot of money.The ones complaining the loudest are the ones who’ve done the most damage especially with Brexit, that alone costs us £90,000,000,000 a year in lost tax revenue. Put that on the side of your bus!
Exactly. There’s no plan, just stopping as much as possible.To be fair, I’ve stopped listening as it’s become quite clear that it’s not about the country, it’s now just about who can shout the loudest on their specific issue.
Easier to drive past many of the arguments as they have no substance, just bluster for the sake of it.
Haha, a spin right out of the Rachel Reeves playbook. So you can ask a question but I can't ask a similar one.Nice back track. You dug a hole with your stupid comment. Kudos for now accepting that
How disabled do you have to be to be able to ask for help in Maxwellland?Haha, a spin right out of the Rachel Reeves playbook. So you can ask a question but I can't ask a similar one.
Like many, I don’t mind reasoned debate as it’s usually based on what we actually know rather than on wild opinion or, in some cases, mis or disinformation. That’s where you have to question the logic of your own response as one is only feeding further speculation and falsehoods as the position will no doubt be defended.Exactly. There’s no plan, just stopping as much as possible.
“stop foreign aid, feed our own.”
2 child cap removed. “Not those though. It’s the 500 homeless veterans that should get it.”
“Not those veterans though who are hooked on drugs.”
Etc.
Totally the same. No one believes the other person’s source, so debate has died and it’s just a slanging match as a result.Like many, I don’t mind reasoned debate as it’s usually based on what we actually know rather than on wild opinion or, in some cases, mis or disinformation. That’s where you have to question the logic of your own response as one is only feeding further speculation and falsehoods as the position will no doubt be defended.
I now find it easier, and much better for your mental health, to drive past these would be encounters and allow others to look at what has been posited and make their mind up about who/what that person is.
We all know that there are those that are genuinely deserving of help and we all know that there are those that are milking the system. If you're happy to fund those that don't need help then more fool you.How disabled do you have to be to be able to ask for help in Maxwellland?
Think you need to realise that certain people will milk the system however draconian you make it.We all know that there are those that are genuinely deserving of help and we all know that there are those that are milking the system. If you're happy to fund those that don't need help then more fool you.
Oh, come on, BKB, we all know you've got the hots for her really. You were very much the same when it came to Rayner too. Maybe there's a hint of mysogyny going on in BKB land? Oh no that can't be right because you've never had a go at the likes of Michelle Mone.You’re happy with Reeves deliberately lying to the media then, stating that investment would need to be significantly reduced without tax rises?
A straight up lie and you’re making excuses for it.
I’ve already outlined what she said to the BBC, and when she said it (10 November).I’m not making excuses, where did she lie?
Do you know the plan for investment and the costs involved?
We’re at a point where our public services need investment, and turn around the austerity and mismanagement of public services. That costs, and although you personally don’t want to support these measures, I do. I want to see public services support the next generations, giving them a decent start in life, covering their educational needs, supporting them where needed throughout life, and giving them dignity in their later years.
I see that as fundamental to a decent society, and without it, you get where we were only a couple of years back.
I don't think any one is happy to fund those "milking" the system. But actually having a humane method of determining those not in that group is key. I think there a few posters on here that are genuinely in need and are subjected to quite intrusuve and rigorous assessments.We all know that there are those that are genuinely deserving of help and we all know that there are those that are milking the system. If you're happy to fund those that don't need help then more fool you.
It took 2 minutes for that reply of 8 paragraphs. BKB is a bot!!!!I’ve already outlined what she said to the BBC, and when she said it (10 November).
We did know the plan for investment, as it was outlined in the first two fiscal statements delivered by Reeves, and further detail was provided by the Comprehensive Spending Review in June. The cost of providing this and indeed all other borrowing was already projected in the October 24 and March 25 forecasts and was of course due to be updated in the Budget.
Reeves stated on 10 November that capital spending would need to be significantly reduced if manifesto pledges on tax were to be kept. This wasn’t the case in March, and so the only logical conclusion to draw from such a statement is that the fiscal position had deteriorated significantly, and that action would be required to avoid breaching the fiscal rules.
However we now know that Reeves was told by the OBR on 20 and 31 October that this wasn’t the case, and that the fiscal rules would in fact still be met with the existing profile of resource and capital spending, and indeed without any further increases in tax of any kind.
This is all on the record and fact, regardless of what some desperate sorts on here suggest. The only conclusion to draw is that Reeves lied about the state of the public finances and deliberately misled markets.
Given that you’re so keen to see government spending increased, and more funding provided for public services, I find it odd that you’re defending a Chancellor who deliberately provided a misleading, pejorative picture of the public finances for selfish political gain.
The OBR’s assessment of debt servicing costs have already increased by £41bn over the past year, money that could be spent elsewhere. But you seem happy defending behaviour that contributes to higher borrowing costs and weaker growth, putting further pressure on public spending.
I do find that surprising, at least with regard to yourself, if not for others on here.
Oh, come on, BKB, we all know you've got the hots for her really. You were very much the same when it came to Rayner too. Maybe there's a hint of mysogyny going on in BKB land? Oh no that can't be right because you've never had a go at the likes of Michelle Mone.
You can’t handle the truth, and you can’t debate the actual issue, so you end up throwing around silly insults.
How embarrassing.
I don't disagree with what you say. But the cost of welfare is at a all time high. We have more on sickness benefits than ever, all because it's too easy. The country can't sustain it and it's totally unfair for those that pay the taxesI don't think any one is happy to fund those "milking" the system. But actually having a humane method of determining those not in that group is key. I think there a few posters on here that are genuinely in need and are subjected to quite intrusuve and rigorous assessments.
I actually don't disagree with you but just letting them get away with isn't the answer, nor is it fair yo the genuine cases and those that work to fund it.Think you need to realise that certain people will milk the system however draconian you make it.
Each time you make it more difficult to claim, it’s the genuinely disabled that suffer, not the tiny percentage of scroungers.
Scroungers play up their disabilities, the genuinely infirm don’t.
If you can come up with the solution that’s fair to the disabled, then you’d do what no government has done up until now.I actually don't disagree with you but just letting them get away with isn't the answer, nor is it fair yo the genuine cases and those that work to fund it.
No offence mate but the logic here is confusing. Why do you think the government briefed significant tax rises when it knew there was no need for them an no black hole to fill?Just a little joke, mate.
At the time, I asked the question why many in the media were going ballistic regarding a supposed rise in income tax. I’d already listened to an expert who’d stated that the ‘black hole’ had shrunk to a negligible level and Reeves would be setting the budget for future spend, not trying to clear the past.
Personally, I just didn’t understand the uproar, and still don’t. If I understood that the media furore was a load of bollox, why didn’t they?