Let's help Duncan Smith - how would YOU improve the benefits system?

DavidF

How about we cut benefits for the most needy/desperate in our society and then at the same time cut 30,000 police officers from our streets. We can then sit back and watch what "Fun" arises from those decisions.......Oh wait they have already thought of that/It's in the process of happening.

Should also knock down a few prisons due to the fact that there will be less police officers on the streets. We all moaned during Labour's term that the streets were getting less safe and the police were not performing ect.......And the current government's answer is to CUT it. I must have went to a different school from that think tank because for the life of me I just can't get my head round it.

IMHO it stands to reason that crime of all description will rocket over the next few years due to people becoming more desperate for cash.

I know one thing for sure, It's going to be a very interesting 5 years ahead. I think Darwinism will take effect where the weakest in our society will suffer most.

treliac

kabayiri wrote: »

stop believing life is fair. It isn't. Some will always get more than others when you implement national benefits. The reasons why are numerous; you just can't easily legislate for all variations in personal circumstance. I just want a system which encourages the right moral values in society.

• Never a truer word was spoken.
• Me too, more than anything else.

ps2659

Scrap legal aid for people like Ian Huntley the Soham murderer and the MPs who fiddled expenses, I know its not the benefit system refered to but still a massive drain on the taxpayer and massive earnings for lawyers.

neverdespairgirl

DavidF wrote: »

at the same time cut 30,000 police officers from our streets. ......

Should also knock down a few prisons due to the fact that there will be less police officers on the streets.

I don't think numbers of police is all that matters. Have a look at this article, for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7908488/Free-the-police-and-save-billions.html

LydiaJ

ps2659 wrote: »

Scrap legal aid for people like Ian Huntley the Soham murderer and the MPs who fiddled expenses, I know its not the benefit system refered to but still a massive drain on the taxpayer and massive earnings for lawyers.

In this country you are still (in most cases) innocent until proven guilty, and entitled to a fair trial whether you have the means to afford the necessary legal support or not. I don't want to change that. Even in Huntley's case, I believe it is a good thing for society that he had legal aid so that he was seen to have a fair trial.

ps2659

LydiaJ wrote: »

In this country you are still (in most cases) innocent until proven guilty, and entitled to a fair trial whether you have the means to afford the necessary legal support or not. I don't want to change that. Even in Huntley's case, I believe it is a good thing for society that he had legal aid so that he was seen to have a fair trial.

So you think it OK for Huntley to sue for damages after having his throat cut by an inmate and the cheating MPs who are proven to have fiddled expenses.

LydiaJ

ps2659 wrote: »

So you think it OK for Huntley to sue for damages after having his throat cut by an inmate and the cheating MPs who are proven to have fiddled expenses.

I don't know enough about Huntley's current case to have an opinion on that. I do think it was important that he got a fair trial when he was originally convicted, and that he was publicly seen to have had a fair trial.

MPs accused of fraud should be subject to the same means-tested conditions for legal aid as everyone else.

I believe in one law for everyone, and the same access to due judicial process for everyone, regardless of whether they have (or are alleged to have) committed crimes that I or anyone else considers to be repellent.

I also find it disquieting that you are linking expenses fraud with child murder. The only connection between the two cases is the extent of the public outcry, which should never ever be a criterion for determining legal matters.

Spartacus_Mills

LizEstelle wrote: »

Here's another benefit worth scrapping - let's do away with the benefit of allowing firms to collude on pricing. I don't see why I should be paying more of my taxes than need be for government contracts or through my disposable income for my weekly spend. Let's have a 'Department of Whistleblowing' to actively seek out and adequately reward people who bring private sector skullduggery to light.

It already is illegal for firms to collude on pricing.

Spartacus_Mills

leveller2911 wrote: »

Still sounding very bitter n twisted since "Your" team lost Liz.....

LOL

But it is very funny to watch it frothing around in this forum. Sadly some of the other bunkerbots seem to have gone.

Spartacus_Mills

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Even labour state they lost.

So what does that say about their intelligence level?

Peter Mandelson made that very comment on Radio 4 when plugging his book. John Reid and others made the comment at the time the coalition was being put together.

Simply Labour lost, the Tories won, but won without an overall majority. It is not difficult.

Still LizEstelle has never let common sense or the facts get in the way before so why start now.