Beware the conservatives

First published in Letters

THE TORY party conference has revealed that, despite the warm words of pre-election Cameron, the nasty party are back with a vengeance.

With an economic plan that has delivered a homemade double dip recession and the IMF forecasting no growth any time soon, Cameron and Osborne look to the poorest to pay for their failures and the greed of bankers. Osborne tells us that he wants to cut welfare payments by £10billion through stopping housing benefits to the under-25s. The reality is this would only save £1 billion. It’s worth noting the vast majority of claimants are low-paid workers. With their economic plan in ruins, borrowing increasing and the IMF forecasting no growth any time soon, the Tories are looking to scapegoat a section of society. The big question is where is the remaining £9 billion coming from? If you’re in receipt of any kind of benefit or help, in work or out, the Tories will be coming for you next. Cllr Nigel Dix, Blackwood

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:10pm Thu 11 Oct 12

A. R. Hill says...

Mr Dix, you are what's wrong with politics today, bashing the Tories, saying they are evil and nasty, that sort of language belongs in a playground not in politics, at least the Tories have a leader who has had a proper job, unlike your dear leader who has only worked in politics his whole life, how can someone who has never had a proper job really be in touch with ordinary people?
Mr Dix, you are what's wrong with politics today, bashing the Tories, saying they are evil and nasty, that sort of language belongs in a playground not in politics, at least the Tories have a leader who has had a proper job, unlike your dear leader who has only worked in politics his whole life, how can someone who has never had a proper job really be in touch with ordinary people? A. R. Hill
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Llanmartinangel says...

If I ever meet a Tory from this government I'll let you know. No Tory worth the name would happily accept a country where you can claim £26k on benefits when people working hard get half that on minimum wage. Or be dictated to by obscure courts in Strasbourg where only 50% of those giving us orders have any legal qualifications of any kind. Or have people who have never worked in the UK living in houses beyond the reach of people who have worked and paid taxes all their lives. Or be made to accept the views of illegal immigrant radicals and then pay their court costs when those same people would destroy the very institutions they call upon for their safety. As for having children you can't afford, irresponsibility is just that. Why reward it?
If I ever meet a Tory from this government I'll let you know. No Tory worth the name would happily accept a country where you can claim £26k on benefits when people working hard get half that on minimum wage. Or be dictated to by obscure courts in Strasbourg where only 50% of those giving us orders have any legal qualifications of any kind. Or have people who have never worked in the UK living in houses beyond the reach of people who have worked and paid taxes all their lives. Or be made to accept the views of illegal immigrant radicals and then pay their court costs when those same people would destroy the very institutions they call upon for their safety. As for having children you can't afford, irresponsibility is just that. Why reward it? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Thu 11 Oct 12

pinpong says...

Typical Labour letter. we all know that it is the scroungers on benefits who vote for the likes of Nigel Dix. Thats why he bashes the torys.
Typical Labour letter. we all know that it is the scroungers on benefits who vote for the likes of Nigel Dix. Thats why he bashes the torys. pinpong
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Llanmartinangel says...

The problem is that Labour always leave power after they have spent everyone else's money.
The problem is that Labour always leave power after they have spent everyone else's money. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Riley2012 says...

When i was growing up, my father always said, son keep away from the three P 's, 1 the Police, 2 the Priest, 3 the most of all the politician ????
When i was growing up, my father always said, son keep away from the three P 's, 1 the Police, 2 the Priest, 3 the most of all the politician ???? Riley2012
  • Score: 0

10:45pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Llanmartinangel says...

It might be all he has to offer rather than a cohesive arguement though eh?
It might be all he has to offer rather than a cohesive arguement though eh? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Nig says...

The original letter was about how the Tories economic plan has failed and who is paying the price for that failure, borrowing is up and growth is none existent that’s it. Nothing to do with Newport Council or immigration, the Nasty party name came from surveys carried by pollsters such as MORI, where the public had described the Tories as the Nasty party. The Toreis are looking to find £billion more in cuts, and the question is where are they going to come from? Cameron is already eyeing free bus passes, TV licences and winter fuel payments. Even if they cut all these there will still be no growth, so more cuts will be needed to pay for their failed economic Plan, while the bankers who caused the global crash carry on taking huge bonuses. This should surprise no one when over 50% of Tory funding comes from the banking sector. I feel other comments are not worthy of a reply.
The original letter was about how the Tories economic plan has failed and who is paying the price for that failure, borrowing is up and growth is none existent that’s it. Nothing to do with Newport Council or immigration, the Nasty party name came from surveys carried by pollsters such as MORI, where the public had described the Tories as the Nasty party. The Toreis are looking to find £billion more in cuts, and the question is where are they going to come from? Cameron is already eyeing free bus passes, TV licences and winter fuel payments. Even if they cut all these there will still be no growth, so more cuts will be needed to pay for their failed economic Plan, while the bankers who caused the global crash carry on taking huge bonuses. This should surprise no one when over 50% of Tory funding comes from the banking sector. I feel other comments are not worthy of a reply. Nig
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Fri 12 Oct 12

A. R. Hill says...

Actually Nig it came from Theresa May calling it the Nasty Party in her attempt to get the leadership, her gamble didn't pay off. Labours plan? Borrow more? Yeah let's get rid of the deficit with more debt that'll do it. Labour also caused the deficit, maye they should pay more themselves since it's their fault.
Actually Nig it came from Theresa May calling it the Nasty Party in her attempt to get the leadership, her gamble didn't pay off. Labours plan? Borrow more? Yeah let's get rid of the deficit with more debt that'll do it. Labour also caused the deficit, maye they should pay more themselves since it's their fault. A. R. Hill
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Fri 12 Oct 12

A. R. Hill says...

Pay more tax*
Pay more tax* A. R. Hill
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Llanmartinangel says...

The welfare budget in this country (Treasury figures) is £255 Billion, of which pensions make up £138 Billion, which means that welfare is £117 Billion. These figures exclude the £126 Billion the NHS costs. That pretty much means that, however much more you could take from the wealthy, it would not impact any of those figures by very much, there aren't enough of them. Rich people are free to live (and take their money with them) wherever they want. That is a fact of life. It's why every time they put taxes up on the wealthy they finish up getting less into the treasury. Check out the history of Harold Wilson's government. The reality is that you cannot make the poor better off by taking it from people who strive. It's been tried in Russia, Cuba, Korea and countless other places. Even that great Communist (discuss?) state of China has realised you need millionaires, love 'em or hate 'em. What's really at work here is that Labour need people they can point the finger at. A surprising number of people who became wealthy broke their backs and took risks to get it. Lashing out at them is cheap and pointless.
The welfare budget in this country (Treasury figures) is £255 Billion, of which pensions make up £138 Billion, which means that welfare is £117 Billion. These figures exclude the £126 Billion the NHS costs. That pretty much means that, however much more you could take from the wealthy, it would not impact any of those figures by very much, there aren't enough of them. Rich people are free to live (and take their money with them) wherever they want. That is a fact of life. It's why every time they put taxes up on the wealthy they finish up getting less into the treasury. Check out the history of Harold Wilson's government. The reality is that you cannot make the poor better off by taking it from people who strive. It's been tried in Russia, Cuba, Korea and countless other places. Even that great Communist (discuss?) state of China has realised you need millionaires, love 'em or hate 'em. What's really at work here is that Labour need people they can point the finger at. A surprising number of people who became wealthy broke their backs and took risks to get it. Lashing out at them is cheap and pointless. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Sat 13 Oct 12

chris227 says...

a classic labour letter , better to scrap the WAG and the welsh language
a classic labour letter , better to scrap the WAG and the welsh language chris227
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Sun 14 Oct 12

chris227 says...

Ask our councillor what labour did for the working class swamped the country with loads of cheap labour for eastern europe which benefited the rich but left the poor english worker with wages that never rose in 10 year . OH HATS OFF TO LABOUR THEY DONE A MARVELOUS JOB!!
Ask our councillor what labour did for the working class swamped the country with loads of cheap labour for eastern europe which benefited the rich but left the poor english worker with wages that never rose in 10 year . OH HATS OFF TO LABOUR THEY DONE A MARVELOUS JOB!! chris227
  • Score: 0

9:45am Mon 15 Oct 12

Bobevans says...

Another day dreamer who thinks you can just keep spending money you don't have.

There is massive abuse and fraud with benefits and regardless of that we cannot afford the current level of benefits.

Why should under 25's automatically get a state subsidy. What is wrong with them living with their parents untill they have saved a deposit for a home

Part of the problem as to why the young find it harder to save for a home is they spend too nmuch on booze and fags. Another part of the problem is everyone is taxed to the hilt to pay for the ever growing army of feckless Welfare scroungers and unmarried mothers.
Another day dreamer who thinks you can just keep spending money you don't have. There is massive abuse and fraud with benefits and regardless of that we cannot afford the current level of benefits. Why should under 25's automatically get a state subsidy. What is wrong with them living with their parents untill they have saved a deposit for a home Part of the problem as to why the young find it harder to save for a home is they spend too nmuch on booze and fags. Another part of the problem is everyone is taxed to the hilt to pay for the ever growing army of feckless Welfare scroungers and unmarried mothers. Bobevans
  • Score: 0

9:49am Mon 15 Oct 12

Bobevans says...

Councillor Dix I have never heard so much total garbage. I find it very concerning as well that you probably have some input to the councils budget.

YOu are saying governments should just keepspending money they do noyt have. I find that staggering and also stupid.


Would you care to say where this non existant money that we do not have is going to comer from?

I know you are going to suggest we borrow even more money.


Personally I would sugget that anyome in his ward think carefully as to whether he is suitable to be your representative on the council.
Councillor Dix I have never heard so much total garbage. I find it very concerning as well that you probably have some input to the councils budget. YOu are saying governments should just keepspending money they do noyt have. I find that staggering and also stupid. Would you care to say where this non existant money that we do not have is going to comer from? I know you are going to suggest we borrow even more money. Personally I would sugget that anyome in his ward think carefully as to whether he is suitable to be your representative on the council. Bobevans
  • Score: 0

9:59am Mon 15 Oct 12

Bobevans says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
The welfare budget in this country (Treasury figures) is £255 Billion, of which pensions make up £138 Billion, which means that welfare is £117 Billion. These figures exclude the £126 Billion the NHS costs. That pretty much means that, however much more you could take from the wealthy, it would not impact any of those figures by very much, there aren't enough of them. Rich people are free to live (and take their money with them) wherever they want. That is a fact of life. It's why every time they put taxes up on the wealthy they finish up getting less into the treasury. Check out the history of Harold Wilson's government. The reality is that you cannot make the poor better off by taking it from people who strive. It's been tried in Russia, Cuba, Korea and countless other places. Even that great Communist (discuss?) state of China has realised you need millionaires, love 'em or hate 'em. What's really at work here is that Labour need people they can point the finger at. A surprising number of people who became wealthy broke their backs and took risks to get it. Lashing out at them is cheap and pointless.
The more youincrease Welfare benefits the more that take advantage of them.

Most benefits should just be axed.

We pay incapacity to those that are so disabled that they cannot work only. This should be nomore than 10% of the population.


Job Seekers Allowance should be paid for 12 months only. After that they will get an allowance provided they are prepared to do community work

All child benefits and tax credits would be axed

Tax allowances for those working would be increased to £15K so no one earning £15K or less would pay tax.


Council tax would be abolished and replaced by a local income tax that everyone working would pay.

Overseas aid would be reduced by 10% a year

We should withdraw from the EU


If people can get money etc for nothing then a good percentage of the population will take advantage and not work
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: The welfare budget in this country (Treasury figures) is £255 Billion, of which pensions make up £138 Billion, which means that welfare is £117 Billion. These figures exclude the £126 Billion the NHS costs. That pretty much means that, however much more you could take from the wealthy, it would not impact any of those figures by very much, there aren't enough of them. Rich people are free to live (and take their money with them) wherever they want. That is a fact of life. It's why every time they put taxes up on the wealthy they finish up getting less into the treasury. Check out the history of Harold Wilson's government. The reality is that you cannot make the poor better off by taking it from people who strive. It's been tried in Russia, Cuba, Korea and countless other places. Even that great Communist (discuss?) state of China has realised you need millionaires, love 'em or hate 'em. What's really at work here is that Labour need people they can point the finger at. A surprising number of people who became wealthy broke their backs and took risks to get it. Lashing out at them is cheap and pointless.[/p][/quote]The more youincrease Welfare benefits the more that take advantage of them. Most benefits should just be axed. We pay incapacity to those that are so disabled that they cannot work only. This should be nomore than 10% of the population. Job Seekers Allowance should be paid for 12 months only. After that they will get an allowance provided they are prepared to do community work All child benefits and tax credits would be axed Tax allowances for those working would be increased to £15K so no one earning £15K or less would pay tax. Council tax would be abolished and replaced by a local income tax that everyone working would pay. Overseas aid would be reduced by 10% a year We should withdraw from the EU If people can get money etc for nothing then a good percentage of the population will take advantage and not work Bobevans
  • Score: 0

10:03am Mon 15 Oct 12

Bobevans says...

chris227 wrote:
Ask our councillor what labour did for the working class swamped the country with loads of cheap labour for eastern europe which benefited the rich but left the poor english worker with wages that never rose in 10 year . OH HATS OFF TO LABOUR THEY DONE A MARVELOUS JOB!!
I would say indirectly. What we had is that Labour had raised benefits so high that many people were better off not working and in fact the taxation and benefits system lLabour came up with encourged people to go on benefits whilst at the same time penalizing those that tried to help themselves

All this resulted in many low paid jobs being unfilled. Instead though of requiring those on benefits to take these jobs it took the approach of allowing migrants to come into fill them.


I suspect a lot of this was poltical. People on benefits mainly vote Labour as do Migrants.
[quote][p][bold]chris227[/bold] wrote: Ask our councillor what labour did for the working class swamped the country with loads of cheap labour for eastern europe which benefited the rich but left the poor english worker with wages that never rose in 10 year . OH HATS OFF TO LABOUR THEY DONE A MARVELOUS JOB!![/p][/quote]I would say indirectly. What we had is that Labour had raised benefits so high that many people were better off not working and in fact the taxation and benefits system lLabour came up with encourged people to go on benefits whilst at the same time penalizing those that tried to help themselves All this resulted in many low paid jobs being unfilled. Instead though of requiring those on benefits to take these jobs it took the approach of allowing migrants to come into fill them. I suspect a lot of this was poltical. People on benefits mainly vote Labour as do Migrants. Bobevans
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Howie' says...

Bobevans wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
The welfare budget in this country (Treasury figures) is £255 Billion, of which pensions make up £138 Billion, which means that welfare is £117 Billion. These figures exclude the £126 Billion the NHS costs. That pretty much means that, however much more you could take from the wealthy, it would not impact any of those figures by very much, there aren't enough of them. Rich people are free to live (and take their money with them) wherever they want. That is a fact of life. It's why every time they put taxes up on the wealthy they finish up getting less into the treasury. Check out the history of Harold Wilson's government. The reality is that you cannot make the poor better off by taking it from people who strive. It's been tried in Russia, Cuba, Korea and countless other places. Even that great Communist (discuss?) state of China has realised you need millionaires, love 'em or hate 'em. What's really at work here is that Labour need people they can point the finger at. A surprising number of people who became wealthy broke their backs and took risks to get it. Lashing out at them is cheap and pointless.
The more youincrease Welfare benefits the more that take advantage of them.

Most benefits should just be axed.

We pay incapacity to those that are so disabled that they cannot work only. This should be nomore than 10% of the population.


Job Seekers Allowance should be paid for 12 months only. After that they will get an allowance provided they are prepared to do community work

All child benefits and tax credits would be axed

Tax allowances for those working would be increased to £15K so no one earning £15K or less would pay tax.


Council tax would be abolished and replaced by a local income tax that everyone working would pay.

Overseas aid would be reduced by 10% a year

We should withdraw from the EU


If people can get money etc for nothing then a good percentage of the population will take advantage and not work
There endeth the lesson according to Saint Bob!

Very thoughtful and intellectual Bobby Boy.

Most benefits should just be axed.

The streets would be full of homeless people and crime would go through the roof.

We pay incapacity to those that are so disabled that they cannot work only.

Fraud according to the Governments own figures for disabled people is 0.5% so it seems that's happening now.

This should be nomore than 10% of the population

LOL, Bobby just dreaming up the first figure to come in to his head without any facts to back it up.

All child benefits and tax credits would be axed

Labour were on target to eradicate child poverty, something that is not being done by the Tory's but Bob wants to massively increase child poverty and make Brittain the worst place to have kids in Europe. Bet he took child benefit for his kids!

Tax allowances for those working would be increased to £15K so no one earning £15K or less would pay tax.

Thats hit the exchequer for billions Bob and I thought you said we don't have any money.

Council tax would be abolished and replaced by a local income tax that everyone working would pay.

I like this idea Bob I really do....I am retired and live in a large detached house in a nice area and you have just saved me over £2k a year, cheers mate I'm off down the pub to celebrate. Problem is I'm not on my own so those in work would have to pay extra to maintain their council services and make up for the money that the council aren't receiving off those who are retired.

Back to the drawing board Bobby Boy, points de néant.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: The welfare budget in this country (Treasury figures) is £255 Billion, of which pensions make up £138 Billion, which means that welfare is £117 Billion. These figures exclude the £126 Billion the NHS costs. That pretty much means that, however much more you could take from the wealthy, it would not impact any of those figures by very much, there aren't enough of them. Rich people are free to live (and take their money with them) wherever they want. That is a fact of life. It's why every time they put taxes up on the wealthy they finish up getting less into the treasury. Check out the history of Harold Wilson's government. The reality is that you cannot make the poor better off by taking it from people who strive. It's been tried in Russia, Cuba, Korea and countless other places. Even that great Communist (discuss?) state of China has realised you need millionaires, love 'em or hate 'em. What's really at work here is that Labour need people they can point the finger at. A surprising number of people who became wealthy broke their backs and took risks to get it. Lashing out at them is cheap and pointless.[/p][/quote]The more youincrease Welfare benefits the more that take advantage of them. Most benefits should just be axed. We pay incapacity to those that are so disabled that they cannot work only. This should be nomore than 10% of the population. Job Seekers Allowance should be paid for 12 months only. After that they will get an allowance provided they are prepared to do community work All child benefits and tax credits would be axed Tax allowances for those working would be increased to £15K so no one earning £15K or less would pay tax. Council tax would be abolished and replaced by a local income tax that everyone working would pay. Overseas aid would be reduced by 10% a year We should withdraw from the EU If people can get money etc for nothing then a good percentage of the population will take advantage and not work[/p][/quote]There endeth the lesson according to Saint Bob! Very thoughtful and intellectual Bobby Boy. Most benefits should just be axed. The streets would be full of homeless people and crime would go through the roof. We pay incapacity to those that are so disabled that they cannot work only. Fraud according to the Governments own figures for disabled people is 0.5% so it seems that's happening now. This should be nomore than 10% of the population LOL, Bobby just dreaming up the first figure to come in to his head without any facts to back it up. All child benefits and tax credits would be axed Labour were on target to eradicate child poverty, something that is not being done by the Tory's but Bob wants to massively increase child poverty and make Brittain the worst place to have kids in Europe. Bet he took child benefit for his kids! Tax allowances for those working would be increased to £15K so no one earning £15K or less would pay tax. Thats hit the exchequer for billions Bob and I thought you said we don't have any money. Council tax would be abolished and replaced by a local income tax that everyone working would pay. I like this idea Bob I really do....I am retired and live in a large detached house in a nice area and you have just saved me over £2k a year, cheers mate I'm off down the pub to celebrate. Problem is I'm not on my own so those in work would have to pay extra to maintain their council services and make up for the money that the council aren't receiving off those who are retired. Back to the drawing board Bobby Boy, points de néant. Howie'
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Mon 15 Oct 12

A. R. Hill says...

Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'
Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie' A. R. Hill
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Howie' says...

A. R. Hill wrote:
Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'
Read the post. He wants most benefits abolished along with Child Benefit and tax credits............W
hat effect do you think that would have on child poverty?

Labour had a policy to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and although they missed their target in 2010 by 100,000 they had at that time removed 900,000 from child poverty through benefits, taxation and employment targets. Without the major increases in financial support to families with children that Labour introduced, child poverty would be an estimated 1.8 million higher in 2010. Read what Joseph Rowntree foundation or the Child Poverty Action Group have to say:

http://www.cpag.org.
uk/sites/default/fil
es/CPAG-Ending-child
-poverty-by-2020-pro
gress-made-lessons-l
earned-0612_0.pdf

If the welfare state is so big and unaffordable how can we afford to give top rate tax payers a 5% tax cut, we have the money to give the richest in society a tax cut, we apparently have the money to let Goldman Sachs (£10ml), Vodafone (£6bn), off taxes It was not a one off. rich corporations and individuals collectively get away with dodging £95bn every single year. We are told that there is no alternative to drastic cuts to public services but collecting the tax dodged by the super-rich would render the vast majority of the government’s spending cuts unnecessary. But the government has barely lifted a finger to stop corporate tax avoidance. In fact, they’ve gone the other way.

Not only have they signalled a softening of their approach to corporate tax avoidance, but they’ve also slashed jobs at HM Revenue & Customs, making them impotent in the face of corporate tax avoidance. This certainly isn’t a money-saving measure: every pound invested in investigating tax avoidance brings £60 back to the public purse.

http://www.ukuncut.o
rg.uk/targets

Now lets have a look at what the caring, compassionate Conservatives have done.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is to take the first steps to downgrade the former Labour government's commitment to eradicating child poverty in 2020 with a green paper looking at new non-income indicators of poverty.

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/society/2012/j
un/14/iain-duncan-sm
ith-child-poverty-ta
rgets

A.R. Hill, you don't win an argument by repeating the 'Daily Mail' claptrap.
[quote][p][bold]A. R. Hill[/bold] wrote: Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'[/p][/quote]Read the post. He wants most benefits abolished along with Child Benefit and tax credits............W hat effect do you think that would have on child poverty? Labour had a policy to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and although they missed their target in 2010 by 100,000 they had at that time removed 900,000 from child poverty through benefits, taxation and employment targets. Without the major increases in financial support to families with children that Labour introduced, child poverty would be an estimated 1.8 million higher in 2010. Read what Joseph Rowntree foundation or the Child Poverty Action Group have to say: http://www.cpag.org. uk/sites/default/fil es/CPAG-Ending-child -poverty-by-2020-pro gress-made-lessons-l earned-0612_0.pdf If the welfare state is so big and unaffordable how can we afford to give top rate tax payers a 5% tax cut, we have the money to give the richest in society a tax cut, we apparently have the money to let Goldman Sachs (£10ml), Vodafone (£6bn), off taxes It was not a one off. rich corporations and individuals collectively get away with dodging £95bn every single year. We are told that there is no alternative to drastic cuts to public services but collecting the tax dodged by the super-rich would render the vast majority of the government’s spending cuts unnecessary. But the government has barely lifted a finger to stop corporate tax avoidance. In fact, they’ve gone the other way. Not only have they signalled a softening of their approach to corporate tax avoidance, but they’ve also slashed jobs at HM Revenue & Customs, making them impotent in the face of corporate tax avoidance. This certainly isn’t a money-saving measure: every pound invested in investigating tax avoidance brings £60 back to the public purse. http://www.ukuncut.o rg.uk/targets Now lets have a look at what the caring, compassionate Conservatives have done. Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is to take the first steps to downgrade the former Labour government's commitment to eradicating child poverty in 2020 with a green paper looking at new non-income indicators of poverty. http://www.guardian. co.uk/society/2012/j un/14/iain-duncan-sm ith-child-poverty-ta rgets A.R. Hill, you don't win an argument by repeating the 'Daily Mail' claptrap. Howie'
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Bobevans says...

A. R. Hill wrote:
Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'
Contray to whay Howie might claimwe have prety much the lowest rate of child poverty in europe.

Whay Howie is refering to are figures which in anty cae are wrong which refer to Relative Poverty. A concept invented by Charties in the UK on that basis anyone that has an income typically of only 60% of average income. although there is no standard defintion. It also use Disposable income rather than Pre tax income. It also does not include benefits in kind.

In reality it is a nonsence and does not measure poverty at all but it comes up with a large number that the Charities can scream out


What the Coalition are going to do to reduce child poverty is tontroduce a SMART card for paying benefits. This will restrict what benefits can be spent on. Preventing benefits being spent on fags, booze, drugs and luxary item. Intially it will be only problemfamillies that will get the smart card.

In some case the goverment will apply to the courts for power of attorny to manage a famillies affairs. This would only be done in extreme cases
[quote][p][bold]A. R. Hill[/bold] wrote: Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'[/p][/quote]Contray to whay Howie might claimwe have prety much the lowest rate of child poverty in europe. Whay Howie is refering to are figures which in anty cae are wrong which refer to Relative Poverty. A concept invented by Charties in the UK on that basis anyone that has an income typically of only 60% of average income. although there is no standard defintion. It also use Disposable income rather than Pre tax income. It also does not include benefits in kind. In reality it is a nonsence and does not measure poverty at all but it comes up with a large number that the Charities can scream out What the Coalition are going to do to reduce child poverty is tontroduce a SMART card for paying benefits. This will restrict what benefits can be spent on. Preventing benefits being spent on fags, booze, drugs and luxary item. Intially it will be only problemfamillies that will get the smart card. In some case the goverment will apply to the courts for power of attorny to manage a famillies affairs. This would only be done in extreme cases Bobevans
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Nig says...

Oh well still not many thinkers out there. Yes there has to be some cuts, but this deep and this quick is the question? The Tories have taken the UK back into recession, not out of it. It was the banks that caused the crash not Labour, a report by the IMF says that the UK government cuts have taken £72 billion out of the economy hence the double dip recession. This lot are now borrowing more than labour did simply to pay for a growing welfare bill generated by their foolish economic policy. The facts are Cameron’s Plan A has failed so the poorest are paying the price, if you welcome that’s up to you.
Oh well still not many thinkers out there. Yes there has to be some cuts, but this deep and this quick is the question? The Tories have taken the UK back into recession, not out of it. It was the banks that caused the crash not Labour, a report by the IMF says that the UK government cuts have taken £72 billion out of the economy hence the double dip recession. This lot are now borrowing more than labour did simply to pay for a growing welfare bill generated by their foolish economic policy. The facts are Cameron’s Plan A has failed so the poorest are paying the price, if you welcome that’s up to you. Nig
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Howie' wrote:
A. R. Hill wrote:
Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'
Read the post. He wants most benefits abolished along with Child Benefit and tax credits............W

hat effect do you think that would have on child poverty?

Labour had a policy to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and although they missed their target in 2010 by 100,000 they had at that time removed 900,000 from child poverty through benefits, taxation and employment targets. Without the major increases in financial support to families with children that Labour introduced, child poverty would be an estimated 1.8 million higher in 2010. Read what Joseph Rowntree foundation or the Child Poverty Action Group have to say:

http://www.cpag.org.

uk/sites/default/fil

es/CPAG-Ending-child

-poverty-by-2020-pro

gress-made-lessons-l

earned-0612_0.pdf

If the welfare state is so big and unaffordable how can we afford to give top rate tax payers a 5% tax cut, we have the money to give the richest in society a tax cut, we apparently have the money to let Goldman Sachs (£10ml), Vodafone (£6bn), off taxes It was not a one off. rich corporations and individuals collectively get away with dodging £95bn every single year. We are told that there is no alternative to drastic cuts to public services but collecting the tax dodged by the super-rich would render the vast majority of the government’s spending cuts unnecessary. But the government has barely lifted a finger to stop corporate tax avoidance. In fact, they’ve gone the other way.

Not only have they signalled a softening of their approach to corporate tax avoidance, but they’ve also slashed jobs at HM Revenue & Customs, making them impotent in the face of corporate tax avoidance. This certainly isn’t a money-saving measure: every pound invested in investigating tax avoidance brings £60 back to the public purse.

http://www.ukuncut.o

rg.uk/targets

Now lets have a look at what the caring, compassionate Conservatives have done.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is to take the first steps to downgrade the former Labour government's commitment to eradicating child poverty in 2020 with a green paper looking at new non-income indicators of poverty.

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/society/2012/j

un/14/iain-duncan-sm

ith-child-poverty-ta

rgets

A.R. Hill, you don't win an argument by repeating the 'Daily Mail' claptrap.
Ah, this is one of those 'free money' type arguments isn't it. I love the way people say 'tax the corporations more'. Many of them are virtually owned by our pension funds so anything you take off them comes indirectly out of pensioners money anyway. You could make corporation tax 100% but then you'd get no new investment in development, recruitment unless those companies put their prices up and who buys mobile phones? Uses banks? I repeat, the working age benefit bill is £117 Billion. Add to that the £13 Billion foreign aid bill and you have something you (or we) can't afford. No-one is suggesting taking it from people who genuinely can't work but while you can afford to put people who have never contributed anything on £26K a year tax free then you can't expect the people who get up at 6 and put in ten hours a day, only to hand over half of what they earn to pay for it to feel wanted can you?
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A. R. Hill[/bold] wrote: Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'[/p][/quote]Read the post. He wants most benefits abolished along with Child Benefit and tax credits............W hat effect do you think that would have on child poverty? Labour had a policy to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and although they missed their target in 2010 by 100,000 they had at that time removed 900,000 from child poverty through benefits, taxation and employment targets. Without the major increases in financial support to families with children that Labour introduced, child poverty would be an estimated 1.8 million higher in 2010. Read what Joseph Rowntree foundation or the Child Poverty Action Group have to say: http://www.cpag.org. uk/sites/default/fil es/CPAG-Ending-child -poverty-by-2020-pro gress-made-lessons-l earned-0612_0.pdf If the welfare state is so big and unaffordable how can we afford to give top rate tax payers a 5% tax cut, we have the money to give the richest in society a tax cut, we apparently have the money to let Goldman Sachs (£10ml), Vodafone (£6bn), off taxes It was not a one off. rich corporations and individuals collectively get away with dodging £95bn every single year. We are told that there is no alternative to drastic cuts to public services but collecting the tax dodged by the super-rich would render the vast majority of the government’s spending cuts unnecessary. But the government has barely lifted a finger to stop corporate tax avoidance. In fact, they’ve gone the other way. Not only have they signalled a softening of their approach to corporate tax avoidance, but they’ve also slashed jobs at HM Revenue & Customs, making them impotent in the face of corporate tax avoidance. This certainly isn’t a money-saving measure: every pound invested in investigating tax avoidance brings £60 back to the public purse. http://www.ukuncut.o rg.uk/targets Now lets have a look at what the caring, compassionate Conservatives have done. Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is to take the first steps to downgrade the former Labour government's commitment to eradicating child poverty in 2020 with a green paper looking at new non-income indicators of poverty. http://www.guardian. co.uk/society/2012/j un/14/iain-duncan-sm ith-child-poverty-ta rgets A.R. Hill, you don't win an argument by repeating the 'Daily Mail' claptrap.[/p][/quote]Ah, this is one of those 'free money' type arguments isn't it. I love the way people say 'tax the corporations more'. Many of them are virtually owned by our pension funds so anything you take off them comes indirectly out of pensioners money anyway. You could make corporation tax 100% but then you'd get no new investment in development, recruitment unless those companies put their prices up and who buys mobile phones? Uses banks? I repeat, the working age benefit bill is £117 Billion. Add to that the £13 Billion foreign aid bill and you have something you (or we) can't afford. No-one is suggesting taking it from people who genuinely can't work but while you can afford to put people who have never contributed anything on £26K a year tax free then you can't expect the people who get up at 6 and put in ten hours a day, only to hand over half of what they earn to pay for it to feel wanted can you? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

10:18am Tue 16 Oct 12

A. R. Hill says...

Nig you keep saying Labour didn't cause the crash which is true, but who caused the deficit but won't apologise for it, the answer is Labour. It's a result of Labour's deficit that these cuts are happening, now will you accept Labour overspent, or will you keep lying to your electorate? And Howie' you don't win an argument by repeating Guardian claptrap, the Guardian is anti-tory so of course it will try to make them look like the devil. Just as the Daily Mail will try to blame Labour for everything, both papers have agenda's so don't try to lower yourself with petty insults.
Nig you keep saying Labour didn't cause the crash which is true, but who caused the deficit but won't apologise for it, the answer is Labour. It's a result of Labour's deficit that these cuts are happening, now will you accept Labour overspent, or will you keep lying to your electorate? And Howie' you don't win an argument by repeating Guardian claptrap, the Guardian is anti-tory so of course it will try to make them look like the devil. Just as the Daily Mail will try to blame Labour for everything, both papers have agenda's so don't try to lower yourself with petty insults. A. R. Hill
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Tue 16 Oct 12

county mad says...

Learn from history people every Labour administration has ruined the economy and still the dull sheeple flock to vote them in
Learn from history people every Labour administration has ruined the economy and still the dull sheeple flock to vote them in county mad
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Llanmartinangel says...

And this is no Tory government, not even close. At best it's 'Liberal Democrat lite'. Can you imagine Thatcher allowing some of the crap being stuffed down the British people's throats? The order recently for GPs to treat foreigners without ever having contributed is an insult to those people who die for the want of drugs/treatment/supp
ort the NHS says it can't afford. Does that sound like a Tory policy to you?
And this is no Tory government, not even close. At best it's 'Liberal Democrat lite'. Can you imagine Thatcher allowing some of the crap being stuffed down the British people's throats? The order recently for GPs to treat foreigners without ever having contributed is an insult to those people who die for the want of drugs/treatment/supp ort the NHS says it can't afford. Does that sound like a Tory policy to you? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
A. R. Hill wrote:
Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'
Read the post. He wants most benefits abolished along with Child Benefit and tax credits............W


hat effect do you think that would have on child poverty?

Labour had a policy to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and although they missed their target in 2010 by 100,000 they had at that time removed 900,000 from child poverty through benefits, taxation and employment targets. Without the major increases in financial support to families with children that Labour introduced, child poverty would be an estimated 1.8 million higher in 2010. Read what Joseph Rowntree foundation or the Child Poverty Action Group have to say:

http://www.cpag.org.


uk/sites/default/fil


es/CPAG-Ending-child


-poverty-by-2020-pro


gress-made-lessons-l


earned-0612_0.pdf

If the welfare state is so big and unaffordable how can we afford to give top rate tax payers a 5% tax cut, we have the money to give the richest in society a tax cut, we apparently have the money to let Goldman Sachs (£10ml), Vodafone (£6bn), off taxes It was not a one off. rich corporations and individuals collectively get away with dodging £95bn every single year. We are told that there is no alternative to drastic cuts to public services but collecting the tax dodged by the super-rich would render the vast majority of the government’s spending cuts unnecessary. But the government has barely lifted a finger to stop corporate tax avoidance. In fact, they’ve gone the other way.

Not only have they signalled a softening of their approach to corporate tax avoidance, but they’ve also slashed jobs at HM Revenue & Customs, making them impotent in the face of corporate tax avoidance. This certainly isn’t a money-saving measure: every pound invested in investigating tax avoidance brings £60 back to the public purse.

http://www.ukuncut.o


rg.uk/targets

Now lets have a look at what the caring, compassionate Conservatives have done.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is to take the first steps to downgrade the former Labour government's commitment to eradicating child poverty in 2020 with a green paper looking at new non-income indicators of poverty.

http://www.guardian.


co.uk/society/2012/j


un/14/iain-duncan-sm


ith-child-poverty-ta


rgets

A.R. Hill, you don't win an argument by repeating the 'Daily Mail' claptrap.
Ah, this is one of those 'free money' type arguments isn't it. I love the way people say 'tax the corporations more'. Many of them are virtually owned by our pension funds so anything you take off them comes indirectly out of pensioners money anyway. You could make corporation tax 100% but then you'd get no new investment in development, recruitment unless those companies put their prices up and who buys mobile phones? Uses banks? I repeat, the working age benefit bill is £117 Billion. Add to that the £13 Billion foreign aid bill and you have something you (or we) can't afford. No-one is suggesting taking it from people who genuinely can't work but while you can afford to put people who have never contributed anything on £26K a year tax free then you can't expect the people who get up at 6 and put in ten hours a day, only to hand over half of what they earn to pay for it to feel wanted can you?
Ah, this is one of those 'free money' type arguments isn't it. I love the way people say 'tax the corporations more'.

No, not at all...Just get the Corporations to pay the tax they should:
Vodafone evaded £6bn, Boots by moving to Zug, Switzerland reduced their tax bill from 24% Corporation Tax to 3%, Sir Phillip Green put Arcadia (Topshop, Topman, Dorothy Perkins, Burton, Miss Selfridge and British Home Stores) in his wifes name and shipped her out to Monaco saving billions in CT, Sir Phillip paid himself £1.2 BL in a year and channeled it through offshore accounts to save £300ml in income tax, Diageo (Johnnie Walker Scotch) Despite average annual profits of almost £2bn over the last decade has paid 2% tax, Tesco control 30% of the UK grocery market and have over 2,000 stores in the UK. In 2010 they made a profit of £3.4bn, yet they will still go to great lengths to avoid paying tax. Starbucks paid £8ml tax on £3bn, Amazon did even better 0% on £3bn.
Tesco has avoided stamp duty land tax to the tune of £90-£100m and £23m in stamp duty, Tesco has its headquarters in the sleepy Hertfordshire town of Cheshunt. Something else that you can find there is Cheshunt Overseas, a limited liability partnership that has enabled Tesco to avoid £16m in tax through overseas business rules. The sums Tesco has avoided may not be as much as Green or Vodafone, but hey, every little helps!
And I could give many other examples but Llanmartinangel I get the feeling that you are quite happy about this so long as people who are struggling to put food on the table have their meagre welfare payments reduced.
So you can see I am not saying Tax the corporations more, I am saying they should pay what their share and the loopholes that Gideon promises to close but never does should be closed.

Many of them are virtually owned by our pension funds so anything you take off them comes indirectly out of pensioners money anyway.

Thats ok then let the poor starve as long as the pension funds make money, by the way name me one Company that is virtually owned by a pension fund, if you can.

You could make corporation tax 100% but then you'd get no new investment in development.

No kidding Sherlock!

The working age benefit bill is £117 Billion.

Straight out of the Daily Mail that one, lol, but I am sure you would not make that claim without the data to back it up, can we see it, please?

‘put people who have never contributed anything on £26K a year tax free’

You have swallowed that one have you? It’s that high because of London rental prices, the housing benefit is paid to the landlord not the tenant. I thought you did not begrudge it if they are genuine (which Government figures show most are, 0.5% fraud for Disability and incapacity benefits).
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A. R. Hill[/bold] wrote: Howie' Labpur were not on target to eradicate child, you don't get rid of poverty by simply throwing money at the poor like Labour did. Howie the Welfare state is too big, so we need to carefully think of what benefits need the axe, that doesn't mean get rid of all benefit, we need to reform the Welfare state as it is getting out of control. Getting rid of child benefit would not make it the worst place to have children in Europe, you can't win an argument by simply lying Howie'[/p][/quote]Read the post. He wants most benefits abolished along with Child Benefit and tax credits............W hat effect do you think that would have on child poverty? Labour had a policy to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and although they missed their target in 2010 by 100,000 they had at that time removed 900,000 from child poverty through benefits, taxation and employment targets. Without the major increases in financial support to families with children that Labour introduced, child poverty would be an estimated 1.8 million higher in 2010. Read what Joseph Rowntree foundation or the Child Poverty Action Group have to say: http://www.cpag.org. uk/sites/default/fil es/CPAG-Ending-child -poverty-by-2020-pro gress-made-lessons-l earned-0612_0.pdf If the welfare state is so big and unaffordable how can we afford to give top rate tax payers a 5% tax cut, we have the money to give the richest in society a tax cut, we apparently have the money to let Goldman Sachs (£10ml), Vodafone (£6bn), off taxes It was not a one off. rich corporations and individuals collectively get away with dodging £95bn every single year. We are told that there is no alternative to drastic cuts to public services but collecting the tax dodged by the super-rich would render the vast majority of the government’s spending cuts unnecessary. But the government has barely lifted a finger to stop corporate tax avoidance. In fact, they’ve gone the other way. Not only have they signalled a softening of their approach to corporate tax avoidance, but they’ve also slashed jobs at HM Revenue & Customs, making them impotent in the face of corporate tax avoidance. This certainly isn’t a money-saving measure: every pound invested in investigating tax avoidance brings £60 back to the public purse. http://www.ukuncut.o rg.uk/targets Now lets have a look at what the caring, compassionate Conservatives have done. Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is to take the first steps to downgrade the former Labour government's commitment to eradicating child poverty in 2020 with a green paper looking at new non-income indicators of poverty. http://www.guardian. co.uk/society/2012/j un/14/iain-duncan-sm ith-child-poverty-ta rgets A.R. Hill, you don't win an argument by repeating the 'Daily Mail' claptrap.[/p][/quote]Ah, this is one of those 'free money' type arguments isn't it. I love the way people say 'tax the corporations more'. Many of them are virtually owned by our pension funds so anything you take off them comes indirectly out of pensioners money anyway. You could make corporation tax 100% but then you'd get no new investment in development, recruitment unless those companies put their prices up and who buys mobile phones? Uses banks? I repeat, the working age benefit bill is £117 Billion. Add to that the £13 Billion foreign aid bill and you have something you (or we) can't afford. No-one is suggesting taking it from people who genuinely can't work but while you can afford to put people who have never contributed anything on £26K a year tax free then you can't expect the people who get up at 6 and put in ten hours a day, only to hand over half of what they earn to pay for it to feel wanted can you?[/p][/quote]Ah, this is one of those 'free money' type arguments isn't it. I love the way people say 'tax the corporations more'. No, not at all...Just get the Corporations to pay the tax they should: Vodafone evaded £6bn, Boots by moving to Zug, Switzerland reduced their tax bill from 24% Corporation Tax to 3%, Sir Phillip Green put Arcadia (Topshop, Topman, Dorothy Perkins, Burton, Miss Selfridge and British Home Stores) in his wifes name and shipped her out to Monaco saving billions in CT, Sir Phillip paid himself £1.2 BL in a year and channeled it through offshore accounts to save £300ml in income tax, Diageo (Johnnie Walker Scotch) Despite average annual profits of almost £2bn over the last decade has paid 2% tax, Tesco control 30% of the UK grocery market and have over 2,000 stores in the UK. In 2010 they made a profit of £3.4bn, yet they will still go to great lengths to avoid paying tax. Starbucks paid £8ml tax on £3bn, Amazon did even better 0% on £3bn. Tesco has avoided stamp duty land tax to the tune of £90-£100m and £23m in stamp duty, Tesco has its headquarters in the sleepy Hertfordshire town of Cheshunt. Something else that you can find there is Cheshunt Overseas, a limited liability partnership that has enabled Tesco to avoid £16m in tax through overseas business rules. The sums Tesco has avoided may not be as much as Green or Vodafone, but hey, every little helps! And I could give many other examples but Llanmartinangel I get the feeling that you are quite happy about this so long as people who are struggling to put food on the table have their meagre welfare payments reduced. So you can see I am not saying Tax the corporations more, I am saying they should pay what their share and the loopholes that Gideon promises to close but never does should be closed. Many of them are virtually owned by our pension funds so anything you take off them comes indirectly out of pensioners money anyway. Thats ok then let the poor starve as long as the pension funds make money, by the way name me one Company that is virtually owned by a pension fund, if you can. You could make corporation tax 100% but then you'd get no new investment in development. No kidding Sherlock! The working age benefit bill is £117 Billion. Straight out of the Daily Mail that one, lol, but I am sure you would not make that claim without the data to back it up, can we see it, please? ‘put people who have never contributed anything on £26K a year tax free’ You have swallowed that one have you? It’s that high because of London rental prices, the housing benefit is paid to the landlord not the tenant. I thought you did not begrudge it if they are genuine (which Government figures show most are, 0.5% fraud for Disability and incapacity benefits). Howie'
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
And this is no Tory government, not even close. At best it's 'Liberal Democrat lite'. Can you imagine Thatcher allowing some of the crap being stuffed down the British people's throats? The order recently for GPs to treat foreigners without ever having contributed is an insult to those people who die for the want of drugs/treatment/supp

ort the NHS says it can't afford. Does that sound like a Tory policy to you?
Got to admit it Llanmartinangel you are bang on the money there...It does not sound like a Tory Policy at all... because as we all know the 'Nasty Party' would watch them suffer at the Hospital Gates.

My Grandson was taken ill in Sweden last year and was treated there free of charge but of course we don't want those pesky Swedes coming over here expecting to be treated when their ill do we, Llanmartinangel?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: And this is no Tory government, not even close. At best it's 'Liberal Democrat lite'. Can you imagine Thatcher allowing some of the crap being stuffed down the British people's throats? The order recently for GPs to treat foreigners without ever having contributed is an insult to those people who die for the want of drugs/treatment/supp ort the NHS says it can't afford. Does that sound like a Tory policy to you?[/p][/quote]Got to admit it Llanmartinangel you are bang on the money there...It does not sound like a Tory Policy at all... because as we all know the 'Nasty Party' would watch them suffer at the Hospital Gates. My Grandson was taken ill in Sweden last year and was treated there free of charge but of course we don't want those pesky Swedes coming over here expecting to be treated when their ill do we, Llanmartinangel? Howie'
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Howie' says...

A. R. Hill wrote:
Nig you keep saying Labour didn't cause the crash which is true, but who caused the deficit but won't apologise for it, the answer is Labour. It's a result of Labour's deficit that these cuts are happening, now will you accept Labour overspent, or will you keep lying to your electorate? And Howie' you don't win an argument by repeating Guardian claptrap, the Guardian is anti-tory so of course it will try to make them look like the devil. Just as the Daily Mail will try to blame Labour for everything, both papers have agenda's so don't try to lower yourself with petty insults.
I gave you three references and the best you can do is shoot the messenger. Does not matter what source I had quoted you can read it verbatim in Hansard because IDS made the announcement to the house.

Google 'Daily Mail Lies' for an entertaining read.
[quote][p][bold]A. R. Hill[/bold] wrote: Nig you keep saying Labour didn't cause the crash which is true, but who caused the deficit but won't apologise for it, the answer is Labour. It's a result of Labour's deficit that these cuts are happening, now will you accept Labour overspent, or will you keep lying to your electorate? And Howie' you don't win an argument by repeating Guardian claptrap, the Guardian is anti-tory so of course it will try to make them look like the devil. Just as the Daily Mail will try to blame Labour for everything, both papers have agenda's so don't try to lower yourself with petty insults.[/p][/quote]I gave you three references and the best you can do is shoot the messenger. Does not matter what source I had quoted you can read it verbatim in Hansard because IDS made the announcement to the house. Google 'Daily Mail Lies' for an entertaining read. Howie'
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Tue 16 Oct 12

A. R. Hill says...

So Iain Duncan Smith said in Hansard, lets make child poverty even worse? Think about it Howie' and if you are going to use the childish remark of the 'Nasty Party' I think I could just say you are part of the 'Loony Left' also why are you attacking anyone who disagrees with you by calling it Daily Mail claptrap? Not very tolerant of you Howie' is it?
So Iain Duncan Smith said in Hansard, lets make child poverty even worse? Think about it Howie' and if you are going to use the childish remark of the 'Nasty Party' I think I could just say you are part of the 'Loony Left' also why are you attacking anyone who disagrees with you by calling it Daily Mail claptrap? Not very tolerant of you Howie' is it? A. R. Hill
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Howie' says...

A. R. Hill wrote:
Nig you keep saying Labour didn't cause the crash which is true, but who caused the deficit but won't apologise for it, the answer is Labour. It's a result of Labour's deficit that these cuts are happening, now will you accept Labour overspent, or will you keep lying to your electorate? And Howie' you don't win an argument by repeating Guardian claptrap, the Guardian is anti-tory so of course it will try to make them look like the devil. Just as the Daily Mail will try to blame Labour for everything, both papers have agenda's so don't try to lower yourself with petty insults.
Nig you keep saying Labour didn't cause the crash which is true, but who caused the deficit but won't apologise for it, the answer is Labour. It's a result of Labour's deficit that these cuts are happening, now will you accept Labour overspent, or will you keep lying to your electorate?

Err, no. Because the facts are not with you. Labour did not overspend during the recession to cause a deficit and prior to the recession Labour was running a surplus. Labour used the discretionary stimulus to boost spending by just 1.5% of GDP whilst the same done by other states including the OECD Countries and the G20 boosted spending by an average of 3.4% but a lot are still running deficits bigger than the UK.

This from the 'British Chambers of Commerce'

Problems surrounding the UK’s budget deficit are no worse than those facing other European countries, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has claimed.

David Kern, economic advisor at the BCC, said that Britain will meet significant challenges as it attempts to recover from the recession but insisted that these are ’not unique to the UK’.

So most of the advanced western nations have been through deficits and recession since the Banks blew the economy out of the water, do you think it is all Labours fault, I mean were they running all the other countries...........
..No of course not so why should they apologise?
[quote][p][bold]A. R. Hill[/bold] wrote: Nig you keep saying Labour didn't cause the crash which is true, but who caused the deficit but won't apologise for it, the answer is Labour. It's a result of Labour's deficit that these cuts are happening, now will you accept Labour overspent, or will you keep lying to your electorate? And Howie' you don't win an argument by repeating Guardian claptrap, the Guardian is anti-tory so of course it will try to make them look like the devil. Just as the Daily Mail will try to blame Labour for everything, both papers have agenda's so don't try to lower yourself with petty insults.[/p][/quote]Nig you keep saying Labour didn't cause the crash which is true, but who caused the deficit but won't apologise for it, the answer is Labour. It's a result of Labour's deficit that these cuts are happening, now will you accept Labour overspent, or will you keep lying to your electorate? Err, no. Because the facts are not with you. Labour did not overspend during the recession to cause a deficit and prior to the recession Labour was running a surplus. Labour used the discretionary stimulus to boost spending by just 1.5% of GDP whilst the same done by other states including the OECD Countries and the G20 boosted spending by an average of 3.4% but a lot are still running deficits bigger than the UK. This from the 'British Chambers of Commerce' Problems surrounding the UK’s budget deficit are no worse than those facing other European countries, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has claimed. David Kern, economic advisor at the BCC, said that Britain will meet significant challenges as it attempts to recover from the recession but insisted that these are ’not unique to the UK’. So most of the advanced western nations have been through deficits and recession since the Banks blew the economy out of the water, do you think it is all Labours fault, I mean were they running all the other countries........... ..No of course not so why should they apologise? Howie'
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Tue 16 Oct 12

A. R. Hill says...

Are you seriously saying that Howie', really? If you're really saying that then I'm sorry you really are just a Labour stooge. Most people know Labour overspent, you are seriously deluded to think otherwise.

http://www.businessi
npolitics.com/2011/0
3/the-budget-deficit
-is-the-fault-of-the
-labour-government-a
nd-not-the-bankers/

Please read this for education Howie'
Are you seriously saying that Howie', really? If you're really saying that then I'm sorry you really are just a Labour stooge. Most people know Labour overspent, you are seriously deluded to think otherwise. http://www.businessi npolitics.com/2011/0 3/the-budget-deficit -is-the-fault-of-the -labour-government-a nd-not-the-bankers/ Please read this for education Howie' A. R. Hill
  • Score: 0

1:02am Wed 17 Oct 12

Howie' says...

A. R. Hill wrote:
So Iain Duncan Smith said in Hansard, lets make child poverty even worse? Think about it Howie' and if you are going to use the childish remark of the 'Nasty Party' I think I could just say you are part of the 'Loony Left' also why are you attacking anyone who disagrees with you by calling it Daily Mail claptrap? Not very tolerant of you Howie' is it?
No, IDS said it in Parliament, when he made a statement to the House, it was RECORDED in Hansard, verbatim. Do try and keep up.

Can't see that contributing to this thread by saying that I don't agree with the Tory's attack on the poorest and weakest in society and that everyone should pay their fair share of tax or that you are plainly wrong about Labour's culpability in the deficit makes me a 'Loony Lefty' but if that is the badge that you want to put on me I will wear it with pride.

Why should I be tolerant of 'Daily Mail' claptrap, did you google it? their is a website that exposes their BS.

As for the term 'Nasty Party' to describe the Tory's I am only repeating what the Conservative Home Secretary and confidant of the Conservative Prime Minister said:

This from 'Wikipedia' although widely reported in the media at the time:

The term Nasty Party was first used by Theresa May where in October 2002 she described the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom as "There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us -- the Nasty Party." Yep your right A.R. Hill, how very, very childish.
[quote][p][bold]A. R. Hill[/bold] wrote: So Iain Duncan Smith said in Hansard, lets make child poverty even worse? Think about it Howie' and if you are going to use the childish remark of the 'Nasty Party' I think I could just say you are part of the 'Loony Left' also why are you attacking anyone who disagrees with you by calling it Daily Mail claptrap? Not very tolerant of you Howie' is it?[/p][/quote]No, IDS said it in Parliament, when he made a statement to the House, it was RECORDED in Hansard, verbatim. Do try and keep up. Can't see that contributing to this thread by saying that I don't agree with the Tory's attack on the poorest and weakest in society and that everyone should pay their fair share of tax or that you are plainly wrong about Labour's culpability in the deficit makes me a 'Loony Lefty' but if that is the badge that you want to put on me I will wear it with pride. Why should I be tolerant of 'Daily Mail' claptrap, did you google it? their is a website that exposes their BS. As for the term 'Nasty Party' to describe the Tory's I am only repeating what the Conservative Home Secretary and confidant of the Conservative Prime Minister said: This from 'Wikipedia' although widely reported in the media at the time: The term Nasty Party was first used by Theresa May where in October 2002 she described the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom as "There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us -- the Nasty Party." Yep your right A.R. Hill, how very, very childish. Howie'
  • Score: 0

9:15am Wed 17 Oct 12

county mad says...

Howie can you explain the supermassive black hole in the economy created by Gordon Ed Balls and their then special adviser Ed milliband called PFI.
Howie can you explain the supermassive black hole in the economy created by Gordon Ed Balls and their then special adviser Ed milliband called PFI. county mad
  • Score: 0

10:58am Wed 17 Oct 12

Nig says...

education time for the Tory Trolls , defend this latest attack on the poor!!!
latest cuts from Compassionate Cameron
Up to half a million disabled people and their families could be worse off under the new system of Universal Credit once it is fully implemented - with some warning that they might be forced out of their homes as a result of the changes, according to a report.
An inquiry headed by former wheelchair athlete Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson has said several "key" groups will lose out under the Universal Credit, which will start to replace much of the benefits and tax credits system from next year.
the study used research showing that once the changes are fully in place, 100,000 disabled children stand to lose up to £28 a week, 230,000 severely disabled people who do not have another adult to help them could receive between £28 and £58 a week less and up to 116,000 disabled people who work could be at risk of losing around £40 a week.
The report said the impact of the cuts in support for disabled children could be "extremely severe" for families currently receiving the mid rate "care component" of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA), a payment made where a child can be severely disabled but does not need care overnight. Of those families affected, one in 10 expressed fears that they could no longer afford their own home, while two thirds said they would have to cut back on food, and more than a half said it would lead them into debt. In some of the most severe cases, some families said the changes to support for disabled children could result in their children having to be placed in full-time residential care.
The report said 83% of those eligible for the severe disability premium (SDP), which will be abolished under the changes, reported that a reduction in benefit levels would mean they would have to cut back on food and 80% said they would have to cut the amount they spent on heating. The changes start to come into force from October next year and current benefit claimants who move on to Universal Credit will not see an immediate reduction in their payments. But they will have their level of benefit frozen, with no increases to take into account rising prices, campaigners said, and they may see their support cut immediately if their household circumstances change. The report, Holes in the Safety Net: the impact of universal credit on disabled people and their families, had the backing of The Children's Society, Citizens Advice and Disability Rights UK and drew on research from these bodies.
Tags: benefits, disabled, family, news
education time for the Tory Trolls , defend this latest attack on the poor!!! latest cuts from Compassionate Cameron Up to half a million disabled people and their families could be worse off under the new system of Universal Credit once it is fully implemented - with some warning that they might be forced out of their homes as a result of the changes, according to a report. An inquiry headed by former wheelchair athlete Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson has said several "key" groups will lose out under the Universal Credit, which will start to replace much of the benefits and tax credits system from next year. the study used research showing that once the changes are fully in place, 100,000 disabled children stand to lose up to £28 a week, 230,000 severely disabled people who do not have another adult to help them could receive between £28 and £58 a week less and up to 116,000 disabled people who work could be at risk of losing around £40 a week. The report said the impact of the cuts in support for disabled children could be "extremely severe" for families currently receiving the mid rate "care component" of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA), a payment made where a child can be severely disabled but does not need care overnight. Of those families affected, one in 10 expressed fears that they could no longer afford their own home, while two thirds said they would have to cut back on food, and more than a half said it would lead them into debt. In some of the most severe cases, some families said the changes to support for disabled children could result in their children having to be placed in full-time residential care. The report said 83% of those eligible for the severe disability premium (SDP), which will be abolished under the changes, reported that a reduction in benefit levels would mean they would have to cut back on food and 80% said they would have to cut the amount they spent on heating. The changes start to come into force from October next year and current benefit claimants who move on to Universal Credit will not see an immediate reduction in their payments. But they will have their level of benefit frozen, with no increases to take into account rising prices, campaigners said, and they may see their support cut immediately if their household circumstances change. The report, Holes in the Safety Net: the impact of universal credit on disabled people and their families, had the backing of The Children's Society, Citizens Advice and Disability Rights UK and drew on research from these bodies. Tags: benefits, disabled, family, news Nig
  • Score: 0

10:58am Wed 17 Oct 12

Nig says...

education time for the Tory Trolls , defend this latest attack on the poor!!!
latest cuts from Compassionate Cameron
Up to half a million disabled people and their families could be worse off under the new system of Universal Credit once it is fully implemented - with some warning that they might be forced out of their homes as a result of the changes, according to a report.
An inquiry headed by former wheelchair athlete Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson has said several "key" groups will lose out under the Universal Credit, which will start to replace much of the benefits and tax credits system from next year.
the study used research showing that once the changes are fully in place, 100,000 disabled children stand to lose up to £28 a week, 230,000 severely disabled people who do not have another adult to help them could receive between £28 and £58 a week less and up to 116,000 disabled people who work could be at risk of losing around £40 a week.
The report said the impact of the cuts in support for disabled children could be "extremely severe" for families currently receiving the mid rate "care component" of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA), a payment made where a child can be severely disabled but does not need care overnight. Of those families affected, one in 10 expressed fears that they could no longer afford their own home, while two thirds said they would have to cut back on food, and more than a half said it would lead them into debt. In some of the most severe cases, some families said the changes to support for disabled children could result in their children having to be placed in full-time residential care.
The report said 83% of those eligible for the severe disability premium (SDP), which will be abolished under the changes, reported that a reduction in benefit levels would mean they would have to cut back on food and 80% said they would have to cut the amount they spent on heating. The changes start to come into force from October next year and current benefit claimants who move on to Universal Credit will not see an immediate reduction in their payments. But they will have their level of benefit frozen, with no increases to take into account rising prices, campaigners said, and they may see their support cut immediately if their household circumstances change. The report, Holes in the Safety Net: the impact of universal credit on disabled people and their families, had the backing of The Children's Society, Citizens Advice and Disability Rights UK and drew on research from these bodies.
Tags: benefits, disabled, family, news
education time for the Tory Trolls , defend this latest attack on the poor!!! latest cuts from Compassionate Cameron Up to half a million disabled people and their families could be worse off under the new system of Universal Credit once it is fully implemented - with some warning that they might be forced out of their homes as a result of the changes, according to a report. An inquiry headed by former wheelchair athlete Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson has said several "key" groups will lose out under the Universal Credit, which will start to replace much of the benefits and tax credits system from next year. the study used research showing that once the changes are fully in place, 100,000 disabled children stand to lose up to £28 a week, 230,000 severely disabled people who do not have another adult to help them could receive between £28 and £58 a week less and up to 116,000 disabled people who work could be at risk of losing around £40 a week. The report said the impact of the cuts in support for disabled children could be "extremely severe" for families currently receiving the mid rate "care component" of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA), a payment made where a child can be severely disabled but does not need care overnight. Of those families affected, one in 10 expressed fears that they could no longer afford their own home, while two thirds said they would have to cut back on food, and more than a half said it would lead them into debt. In some of the most severe cases, some families said the changes to support for disabled children could result in their children having to be placed in full-time residential care. The report said 83% of those eligible for the severe disability premium (SDP), which will be abolished under the changes, reported that a reduction in benefit levels would mean they would have to cut back on food and 80% said they would have to cut the amount they spent on heating. The changes start to come into force from October next year and current benefit claimants who move on to Universal Credit will not see an immediate reduction in their payments. But they will have their level of benefit frozen, with no increases to take into account rising prices, campaigners said, and they may see their support cut immediately if their household circumstances change. The report, Holes in the Safety Net: the impact of universal credit on disabled people and their families, had the backing of The Children's Society, Citizens Advice and Disability Rights UK and drew on research from these bodies. Tags: benefits, disabled, family, news Nig
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 17 Oct 12

Howie' says...

A. R. Hill wrote:
Are you seriously saying that Howie', really? If you're really saying that then I'm sorry you really are just a Labour stooge. Most people know Labour overspent, you are seriously deluded to think otherwise.

http://www.businessi

npolitics.com/2011/0

3/the-budget-deficit

-is-the-fault-of-the

-labour-government-a

nd-not-the-bankers/

Please read this for education Howie'
A Labour stooge eh? And I don't vote Labour, lol.

In 2008 when the financial crisis hit, both the Tories and Lib Dems were still claiming they would continue and maintain Labour spending on public services. Strangely, very strange indeed, this fact is no longer mentioned by the media. If they believed Labour had overspent or been reckless with the economy why would they claim to match their spending?

Before the banking crisis, national debt was actually lower than Labour had inherited off the Tories at around 37% in 1997.

The financial crisis has hit the entire developed world, even the most die hard Tory would struggle to claim that Labour spending policies in one small country off Europe - i.e. the UK have affected the whole world. So to blame Labour for the crisis just seems somewhat strange.

Government debt only ballooned when it had to take on the private sector debt of the banks. You can blame Labour for not regulating enough, but the only voices advocating that were on the left, certainly not from the hedge fund bankrolled Tories.

What if Labour had not increased spending on public services in its 13 years in office. For a start that would not have gone down well with the people who voted for them in 1997 who were crying out for investment in health, education etc. But leaving that aside, the maybe 200 billion Labour might have saved in expenditure, would still only have made a small dent in the trillions of bad debt the banks had racked up by buying up US and other bad debt in casino style deals.

Which ever way you face it, the problem is not that Labour overspent on public services (we still spend less than the EU average) and if this lot have their way we will have the lowest amount of Public Spending in the EU by 2017.
[quote][p][bold]A. R. Hill[/bold] wrote: Are you seriously saying that Howie', really? If you're really saying that then I'm sorry you really are just a Labour stooge. Most people know Labour overspent, you are seriously deluded to think otherwise. http://www.businessi npolitics.com/2011/0 3/the-budget-deficit -is-the-fault-of-the -labour-government-a nd-not-the-bankers/ Please read this for education Howie'[/p][/quote]A Labour stooge eh? And I don't vote Labour, lol. In 2008 when the financial crisis hit, both the Tories and Lib Dems were still claiming they would continue and maintain Labour spending on public services. Strangely, very strange indeed, this fact is no longer mentioned by the media. If they believed Labour had overspent or been reckless with the economy why would they claim to match their spending? Before the banking crisis, national debt was actually lower than Labour had inherited off the Tories at around 37% in 1997. The financial crisis has hit the entire developed world, even the most die hard Tory would struggle to claim that Labour spending policies in one small country off Europe - i.e. the UK have affected the whole world. So to blame Labour for the crisis just seems somewhat strange. Government debt only ballooned when it had to take on the private sector debt of the banks. You can blame Labour for not regulating enough, but the only voices advocating that were on the left, certainly not from the hedge fund bankrolled Tories. What if Labour had not increased spending on public services in its 13 years in office. For a start that would not have gone down well with the people who voted for them in 1997 who were crying out for investment in health, education etc. But leaving that aside, the maybe 200 billion Labour might have saved in expenditure, would still only have made a small dent in the trillions of bad debt the banks had racked up by buying up US and other bad debt in casino style deals. Which ever way you face it, the problem is not that Labour overspent on public services (we still spend less than the EU average) and if this lot have their way we will have the lowest amount of Public Spending in the EU by 2017. Howie'
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Wed 17 Oct 12

Howie' says...

county mad wrote:
Howie can you explain the supermassive black hole in the economy created by Gordon Ed Balls and their then special adviser Ed milliband called PFI.
Not sure exactly what you are asking there, if it's about PFI well quite frankly

I thought it was a mad policy when John Major and the Conservatives bought in to it in 1992 and Labour carried it on in 1997.
[quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: Howie can you explain the supermassive black hole in the economy created by Gordon Ed Balls and their then special adviser Ed milliband called PFI.[/p][/quote]Not sure exactly what you are asking there, if it's about PFI well quite frankly I thought it was a mad policy when John Major and the Conservatives bought in to it in 1992 and Labour carried it on in 1997. Howie'
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 17 Oct 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
And this is no Tory government, not even close. At best it's 'Liberal Democrat lite'. Can you imagine Thatcher allowing some of the crap being stuffed down the British people's throats? The order recently for GPs to treat foreigners without ever having contributed is an insult to those people who die for the want of drugs/treatment/supp


ort the NHS says it can't afford. Does that sound like a Tory policy to you?
Got to admit it Llanmartinangel you are bang on the money there...It does not sound like a Tory Policy at all... because as we all know the 'Nasty Party' would watch them suffer at the Hospital Gates.

My Grandson was taken ill in Sweden last year and was treated there free of charge but of course we don't want those pesky Swedes coming over here expecting to be treated when their ill do we, Llanmartinangel?
Do you want to check your facts? Sweden is in the EU. We have a reciprocal EU arrangement with Sweden as they do with us. I think had your grandson been ill in Botswana you'd have had a slightly different experience. We can treat the rest of the world when we can treat our own. My 81 year old mother can't get readmitted in a hospital in Wales for a botched hip oration 5 years ago. Remind me again who runs Wales and the Health Service (oxymoron) here? Yep, that'll be Labour then.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: And this is no Tory government, not even close. At best it's 'Liberal Democrat lite'. Can you imagine Thatcher allowing some of the crap being stuffed down the British people's throats? The order recently for GPs to treat foreigners without ever having contributed is an insult to those people who die for the want of drugs/treatment/supp ort the NHS says it can't afford. Does that sound like a Tory policy to you?[/p][/quote]Got to admit it Llanmartinangel you are bang on the money there...It does not sound like a Tory Policy at all... because as we all know the 'Nasty Party' would watch them suffer at the Hospital Gates. My Grandson was taken ill in Sweden last year and was treated there free of charge but of course we don't want those pesky Swedes coming over here expecting to be treated when their ill do we, Llanmartinangel?[/p][/quote]Do you want to check your facts? Sweden is in the EU. We have a reciprocal EU arrangement with Sweden as they do with us. I think had your grandson been ill in Botswana you'd have had a slightly different experience. We can treat the rest of the world when we can treat our own. My 81 year old mother can't get readmitted in a hospital in Wales for a botched hip oration 5 years ago. Remind me again who runs Wales and the Health Service (oxymoron) here? Yep, that'll be Labour then. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Wed 17 Oct 12

Howie' says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Howie' wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
And this is no Tory government, not even close. At best it's 'Liberal Democrat lite'. Can you imagine Thatcher allowing some of the crap being stuffed down the British people's throats? The order recently for GPs to treat foreigners without ever having contributed is an insult to those people who die for the want of drugs/treatment/supp



ort the NHS says it can't afford. Does that sound like a Tory policy to you?
Got to admit it Llanmartinangel you are bang on the money there...It does not sound like a Tory Policy at all... because as we all know the 'Nasty Party' would watch them suffer at the Hospital Gates.

My Grandson was taken ill in Sweden last year and was treated there free of charge but of course we don't want those pesky Swedes coming over here expecting to be treated when their ill do we, Llanmartinangel?
Do you want to check your facts? Sweden is in the EU. We have a reciprocal EU arrangement with Sweden as they do with us. I think had your grandson been ill in Botswana you'd have had a slightly different experience. We can treat the rest of the world when we can treat our own. My 81 year old mother can't get readmitted in a hospital in Wales for a botched hip oration 5 years ago. Remind me again who runs Wales and the Health Service (oxymoron) here? Yep, that'll be Labour then.
I am sorry, mate. I took it when you said 'foreigners' as someone who lives or comes from a foreign country and the last time I looked Sweden was in that category. I must be mistaken.

In New Zealand for instance all refugees get free treatment as do most interim visa holders, not sure about Botswana. Spent quite a time in South Africa but never made it to Botswana.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: And this is no Tory government, not even close. At best it's 'Liberal Democrat lite'. Can you imagine Thatcher allowing some of the crap being stuffed down the British people's throats? The order recently for GPs to treat foreigners without ever having contributed is an insult to those people who die for the want of drugs/treatment/supp ort the NHS says it can't afford. Does that sound like a Tory policy to you?[/p][/quote]Got to admit it Llanmartinangel you are bang on the money there...It does not sound like a Tory Policy at all... because as we all know the 'Nasty Party' would watch them suffer at the Hospital Gates. My Grandson was taken ill in Sweden last year and was treated there free of charge but of course we don't want those pesky Swedes coming over here expecting to be treated when their ill do we, Llanmartinangel?[/p][/quote]Do you want to check your facts? Sweden is in the EU. We have a reciprocal EU arrangement with Sweden as they do with us. I think had your grandson been ill in Botswana you'd have had a slightly different experience. We can treat the rest of the world when we can treat our own. My 81 year old mother can't get readmitted in a hospital in Wales for a botched hip oration 5 years ago. Remind me again who runs Wales and the Health Service (oxymoron) here? Yep, that'll be Labour then.[/p][/quote]I am sorry, mate. I took it when you said 'foreigners' as someone who lives or comes from a foreign country and the last time I looked Sweden was in that category. I must be mistaken. In New Zealand for instance all refugees get free treatment as do most interim visa holders, not sure about Botswana. Spent quite a time in South Africa but never made it to Botswana. Howie'
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Wed 17 Oct 12

Llanmartinangel says...

Apology accepted. Perhaps New Zealand can afford to treat everyone who turns up. I just cannot see how we can because if we could we'd treat all British Taxpayers in a reasonable time frame and the fact is, we don't. When you're 81 and disabled and worked and paid tax all your life, being told you can't have surgery because of the waiting lists for scans is pretty appalling. And the blame for that lies squarely with the Welsh Assembly who have other priorities for the money.
Apology accepted. Perhaps New Zealand can afford to treat everyone who turns up. I just cannot see how we can because if we could we'd treat all British Taxpayers in a reasonable time frame and the fact is, we don't. When you're 81 and disabled and worked and paid tax all your life, being told you can't have surgery because of the waiting lists for scans is pretty appalling. And the blame for that lies squarely with the Welsh Assembly who have other priorities for the money. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

11:30am Fri 19 Oct 12

Mudwolf says...

Why is it that asylum seekers (read economic migrants) who land in European states such as France and Germany don't claim asylum in those states preferring to wait until they can enter the UK before claiming. The reason for this is because in France and Germany they grant you asylum, give you benefits but as a condition of attending classes to learn that countries language and then, the immigrant is found work of the taxable kind and contributes. Compare that to the UK where Labour invited hundreds of thousands of them in and gave them accomodation, gave them benefits and left them to their own devices. Mr Dix, I recommend you visit Great Yarmouth some time, it used to be a holiday resort, now it is a factory size immigration centre, all on benefits, nothing to do, with minimal English language skills.
Why is it that asylum seekers (read economic migrants) who land in European states such as France and Germany don't claim asylum in those states preferring to wait until they can enter the UK before claiming. The reason for this is because in France and Germany they grant you asylum, give you benefits but as a condition of attending classes to learn that countries language and then, the immigrant is found work of the taxable kind and contributes. Compare that to the UK where Labour invited hundreds of thousands of them in and gave them accomodation, gave them benefits and left them to their own devices. Mr Dix, I recommend you visit Great Yarmouth some time, it used to be a holiday resort, now it is a factory size immigration centre, all on benefits, nothing to do, with minimal English language skills. Mudwolf
  • Score: 0

11:48am Fri 19 Oct 12

Mudwolf says...

Howie' wrote:
county mad wrote: Howie can you explain the supermassive black hole in the economy created by Gordon Ed Balls and their then special adviser Ed milliband called PFI.
Not sure exactly what you are asking there, if it's about PFI well quite frankly I thought it was a mad policy when John Major and the Conservatives bought in to it in 1992 and Labour carried it on in 1997.
touche
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: Howie can you explain the supermassive black hole in the economy created by Gordon Ed Balls and their then special adviser Ed milliband called PFI.[/p][/quote]Not sure exactly what you are asking there, if it's about PFI well quite frankly I thought it was a mad policy when John Major and the Conservatives bought in to it in 1992 and Labour carried it on in 1997.[/p][/quote]touche Mudwolf
  • Score: 0

11:51am Fri 19 Oct 12

Mudwolf says...

It was indeed introduced by the Major government. Even the current LibCon's are still carrying on with it, lets face it, it's whole purpose is to massage the figures and not show government spending as government debt. It actually works in a similar way to a person buing a house on a mortgage.
It was indeed introduced by the Major government. Even the current LibCon's are still carrying on with it, lets face it, it's whole purpose is to massage the figures and not show government spending as government debt. It actually works in a similar way to a person buing a house on a mortgage. Mudwolf
  • Score: 0

11:55am Fri 19 Oct 12

Mudwolf says...

Get something for a small amount of money now and cripple future generations under the burden of debt, but that will be a long time after you have retired on your gold plated civil service pension.
Get something for a small amount of money now and cripple future generations under the burden of debt, but that will be a long time after you have retired on your gold plated civil service pension. Mudwolf
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Howie' says...

Mudwolf wrote:
Get something for a small amount of money now and cripple future generations under the burden of debt, but that will be a long time after you have retired on your gold plated civil service pension.
Who was that comment aimed at?
[quote][p][bold]Mudwolf[/bold] wrote: Get something for a small amount of money now and cripple future generations under the burden of debt, but that will be a long time after you have retired on your gold plated civil service pension.[/p][/quote]Who was that comment aimed at? Howie'
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Howie' says...

Howie' wrote:
Mudwolf wrote:
Get something for a small amount of money now and cripple future generations under the burden of debt, but that will be a long time after you have retired on your gold plated civil service pension.
Who was that comment aimed at?
Sorry, just seen that the letter was written by Cllr Dix.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mudwolf[/bold] wrote: Get something for a small amount of money now and cripple future generations under the burden of debt, but that will be a long time after you have retired on your gold plated civil service pension.[/p][/quote]Who was that comment aimed at?[/p][/quote]Sorry, just seen that the letter was written by Cllr Dix. Howie'
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree