The harsh truth about Tory policies

baileysbattlebus

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Well let's hope you don't find yourself "worthless"

Here's one prediction I hope is wrong.

Blanchflower: Osborne's cuts will make 5m jobless




What makes you so sure you'll survive ths purge then?

I suppose if public sector workers don't get out and vote Labour in May we must ask ourselves whether they wanted to keep their jobs or not given that there are at least 6 million of them?

Link

"You don't need a long memory in this country to remember the trauma of mass unemployment," Cameron says. "As a recession sets in, hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of losing their jobs, and as recessions go on, long-term unemployment soars. That is a tragedy for the people involved, and it's a tragedy for us, too - for all of society."
He adds: "The Conservative Party will not stand aside and allow unemployment to claim livelihoods and ruin lives on a massive scale. We will not walk on by while people lose their jobs. The authentic Conservative response to the pain of mass unemployment is a fusion of... compassion with responsibility.
"Not just throwing money at the problem - because that would be irresponsible. But not just standing by either - because that would be uncompassionate. We have a moral obligation to help those who have lost their job through no fault of their own, or are in danger of doing so."

David Cameron November 2008.

Was he trying to distance himself from his time as advisor to one Norman Lamont - who put it that unemployment "was a price worth paying" to get inflation down?

Not for me thanks - I remember them the last time, only too well - a leopard and spots springs to mind.

If people think unemployment is high now - I shudder to think what it actually was under the last Conservative gov't - today we have 2 figures the claimant count - 1.6million and the International Labour Office figure - which includes those who can't claim but are looking for work - this figure is about 2.5million (undifferentiated unemployed) the reported figure.

In the recession of the 1990s there was only the claimant count reported - of 3million. It would be interesting to know what the ILO figure would have been then. 4million? More?

They changed the definition of unemployed after the recession the 1980s because it rose to something over 3million of undifferentiated unemployed.

The interesting thing for me is that the media keep saying unemployment will reach the levels of the 1990s recession - but they aren't comparing like for like - if they were using like for like, current unemployment levels today are about half of what were reported in the 1990s.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

misskool wrote: »

Why should you work hard, pay lots of taxes and give it away to those who can choose not to work?

Because not everyone is born equal. Some people are born in poverty and some people are born mentally or physically handicapped. People who are born into poverty deserve our help. They deserve good housing, good education and the chance to prosper. Those of us who have plenty should be prepared to give to those who have nothing.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Heyman wrote: »

Oh if we all work hard, we'll be ok - what a sham :rolleyes:

Couldn't agree more:T
Rich people don't work! They sit at home with their "investment income" while the everybody else works.

WAKE UP everyone. The Rich are still rich and the rest of us just keep working harder and harder.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Those of us who have plenty should be prepared to give to those who have nothing.

No.

Those of us who have plenty should be prepared to offer a hand up, and an opportunity to succeed, to those that have nothing.

If they choose not to take it we should let them rot.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No.

Those of us who have plenty should be prepared to offer a hand up, and an opportunity to succeed, to those that have nothing.

If they choose not to take it we should let them rot.

You're heartless. I don't know how you survive in Scotland, you must find life very difficult:o

treliac

misskool wrote: »

And that will be evident compared to now when it makes more sense for a single mother NOT to return to employment because she makes more from the benefits the government chooses to give her.

It's not rocket science that if you work hard, you should have the money that you have made to spend. Why should you work hard, pay lots of taxes and give it away to those who can choose not to work?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Because not everyone is born equal. Some people are born in poverty and some people are born mentally or physically handicapped. People who are born into poverty deserve our help. They deserve good housing, good education and the chance to prosper. Those of us who have plenty should be prepared to give to those who have nothing.

The important word is 'choose.' No-one, but no-one is talking about people with disabilities, debilitating illnesses, people who have to care for others etc. They all need support and should be provided with essential security. Where is there anyone who would disagree with that?

As far as being born into poverty goes - well so are many of us. A decent society gives everyone a fair chance to achieve .... but that doesn't mean to throw benefits at them merely to maintain their status quo.

mbga9pgf

Sounds as if the hardworking will no longer have to break their backs carrying the !!!!less and lazy.

Sounds like a good set of policies to me.

mbga9pgf

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Couldn't agree more:T
Rich people don't work! They sit at home with their "investment income" while the everybody else works.

WAKE UP everyone. The Rich are still rich and the rest of us just keep working harder and harder.

less well off can just as easily invest. Unfortunately, that means they cant spend on cigarettes, designer chav gear and going out and getting p*ssed, instead having to pick up a book and find out how to invest.

The poor stay poor because thats what they choose. They could lift themselves up. But they make themselved 'victims' instead.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

treliac wrote: »

As far as being born into poverty goes - well so are many of us. A decent society gives everyone a fair chance to achieve .... but that doesn't mean to throw benefits at them merely to maintain their status quo.

You make it sound like people on benefits are living in the lap of luxury, which is ridiculous. I couldn't live on the pittance that they get and I can't believe how many people on here believe that people "choose" to live like that. Why would anyone "Choose" to live on benefits? It must be a dreadful life and people who find themselves in that predictament have nothing but my total and utmost sympathy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

You make it sound like people on benefits are living in the lap of luxury, which is ridiculous. I couldn't live on the pittance that they get and I can't believe how many people on here believe that people "choose" to live like that. Why would anyone "Choose" to live on benefits? It must be a dreadful life and people who find themselves in that predictament have nothing but my total and utmost sympathy.

So tell me, do they have oxygen on the planet you come from?

Because nobody living on this one could have failed to notice all the Sky dishes on council houses, the single mothers with 5 kids from 5 fathers, breeding for benefits, and living in a 6 bedroom house all paid for from MY hard work, etc, etc, etc.....

Yes, of course there should be a safety net. But benefits for all but the disabled should be time limited. After a year or two, no more benefits for you. We won't let people starve and freeze on the streets, even the lazy and f e c k less ones. But that can be achieved by providing a dormitory and a soup kitchen at far less cost than today.

Benefits SHOULD be miserable, subsistence level, and something to be avoided. Not a reward for playing the system.