Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

We have very clear evidence that privatising social care has led to pressure on staff time and wages, so that they are cutting time spent with service users, reducing the quality of care, cutting things to the limit. Several documentaries have explored this, and they bear out what we can predict by analysis, and what we are led to believe by anecdote and experience. The evidence is one-way.

Only if you chose to ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your "agenda " I think it was in this very thread where I gave my own experiences of the social care my nan receives...its nothing like how you describe it Edited September 27, 2013 by tonyh29

[thetrees]

I quite liked red Ed, up until his energy price fixing idiocy anyway.

Whilst what he said may well have been crassly populistic (i.e. 'freezing prices'), I'm not sure why a return to the early (loose) price controls of Ofgem after market deregulation would be any worse than the situation we find ourselves in now.I'm not sure that anyone (other than the big cheeses and the heavy investors in BG, SSE, npower (RWE), EDF, &c.) actually believes the energy 'market' (such that it laughably is) works well. The real trouble with it is that things get discussed in terms of the retail price not following the 'wholesale price' (what on earth that's supposed to be? That's mainly what drives the balancing costs, surely?) and now 'lights going out ' (if you don't allow us to continue to make the profits to which we've become accustomed - where are the headlines about holding the country to ransom now?).The last people that I would trust (and they're even deeper down in the cesspit of mistrust than politicians) when talking about the energy 'market' are the cartel of firms who have divvied up the UK marketplace.Edit: Spelling and stuff.

My reason for referring to Ed's idiocy is because the people and organisations to whom you refer will 'insure' themselves prior to the election by ramping up prices. They will then ramp the prices up after the set period, probably resulting in overall higher increases than would have been necessary. If it happens, there may be winners from his pledge, but I don't think that it will be the consumer.

[drat01]

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder Tony who once posted

"Ok ... it's just I could have sworn Balls was proposing that we spend our way out of our troubles and that the Government approach was wrong .... and yet it doesn't appear that any of the countries coming out the other side spent their way out ???"

 

Close but no buffalo .... you need to try harder I'm afraid

Hint - Balls bloomberg speech will point you in the right direction

 

Tony a bit bigger hint - it was you that posted the quote

 

You need to read it again

( the content that is )I'm aware it's my post

 

Oh Tony you really must try a bit harder - and I bet you are cursing the search option now. You were, have been one of those that have used the myth about Ed Balls, cuts and spend in the past - the quote I showed illustrates how you have used that. Now if you will accept like previous posters that there was never any substance behind the myths thrown out by the Tory support and join those who are happy to mock any people quoting them as facts we can all move on.

[tonyh29]

Ignoring the revisionist post above

I see Cameron announced he is extending the free cancer drug funding until 2016

Surprised none of the regular posters haven't been on already to compliment him on this move

[villaajax]

Can't argue with that. It's also a good thing they didn't scrap the guarantee to see a specialist within two weeks if the doctor suspects somebody has cancer... like they originally planned.

[snowychap]

Surprised none of the regular posters haven't been on already to compliment him on this move

They can't like your posts before you make them.

[bickster]

Ignoring the revisionist post above

I see Cameron announced he is extending the free cancer drug funding until 2016

Surprised none of the regular posters haven't been on already to compliment him on this move

Oh come on, can you imagine the outrage if they hadn't. It was never going to be anything other than an extension

[villaajax]

 

Ignoring the revisionist post above

I see Cameron announced he is extending the free cancer drug funding until 2016

Surprised none of the regular posters haven't been on already to compliment him on this move

Oh come on, can you imagine the outrage if they hadn't. It was never going to be anything other than an extension

 

 

"Tories in Doing the Wrong Thing Shocker!" - I can imagine it.

[tonyh29]

Ignoring the revisionist post above

I see Cameron announced he is extending the free cancer drug funding until 2016

Surprised none of the regular posters haven't been on already to compliment him on this move

Oh come on, can you imagine the outrage if they hadn't. It was never going to be anything other than an extension

'Twas also a policy that Cameron implemented in the first place , so maybe you can belatedly praise him

[bickster]

Ignoring the revisionist post above

I see Cameron announced he is extending the free cancer drug funding until 2016

Surprised none of the regular posters haven't been on already to compliment him on this move

Oh come on, can you imagine the outrage if they hadn't. It was never going to be anything other than an extension

'Twas also a policy that Cameron implemented in the first place , so maybe you can belatedly praise him

It was Labour who introduced free prescriptions for cancer patients, which the missus is extremely grateful for. This whole thing is merely an extension of that. Maybe you should credit Labour for that

[tonyh29]

Ignoring the revisionist post above I see Cameron announced he is extending the free cancer drug funding until 2016 Surprised none of the regular posters haven't been on already to compliment him on this move

Oh come on, can you imagine the outrage if they hadn't. It was never going to be anything other than an extension

'Twas also a policy that Cameron implemented in the first place , so maybe you can belatedly praise him

It was Labour who introduced free prescriptions for cancer patients, which the missus is extremely grateful for. This whole thing is merely an extension of that. Maybe you should credit Labour for that

The cancer drug fund was formed in 2011 , the interim version started in Oct 2010 So how about that Cameron praise Edited September 28, 2013 by tonyh29

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Hey guys, what do you think you are doing living outside social norms? Don't do that! Be like us goodhearted English conservatives and get married! Why? Well, here is a tax break as an incentive. Yes guys, a tax break if you get married and be normal like us. Great, isn't it? Oh, it is wonderful to be normal. Oh, don't listen to that friend of yours in some silly non legally binding partnership. They're just a step away from bestiality or some shit. No, no tax breaks for them despite having just as many responsibilities and as good a reason as any to have a tax break. If only they could get married and stop their silly charade! Hey now, don't listen to the complaints from that single mother over there! I bet she's had an abortion or something. Boo! Hiss! She doesn't need help from us. She should get a husband. That's what she should do. Join us, single mother, and you'll get a tax break and a strong sense of superiority over anyone who lives outside social norms! Yeah! Yeah! CONSERVATISM!!!!!!!

Edited September 28, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[bickster]

free prescriptions for all cancer patients was introduced in 2009, blah…

[snowychap]

Georgie boy goes for the help to buy scheme; Vince (along with others) question whether this may, remarkably, contribute to a future housing bubble; the government stress that there is no housing bubble; the chancellor says that the BoE will keep an eye on help to buy (but annually rather than every three years); the PM is trailed By major news networks that the help to buy scheme will be brought forward...

WTF?

Edit: Also the Nationwide report increases in all areas on the average house price - London around 10%.

In the Beeb article:

Other policy announcements are set to include a crackdown on welfare payments

Piss my roflcopter, you can hardly have a Tory conference without some kind of crackdown on 'welfare payments', can you?

Edited September 29, 2013 by snowychap

[villaajax]

Hey guys, what do you think you are doing living outside social norms? Don't do that! Be like us goodhearted English conservatives and get married! Why? Well, here is a tax break as an incentive. Yes guys, a tax break if you get married and be normal like us. Great, isn't it? Oh, it is wonderful to be normal. Oh, don't listen to that friend of yours in some silly non legally binding partnership. They're just a step away from bestiality or some shit. No, no tax breaks for them despite having just as many responsibilities and as good a reason as any to have a tax break. If only they could get married and stop their silly charade! Hey now, don't listen to the complaints from that single mother over there! I bet she's had an abortion or something. Boo! Hiss! She doesn't need help from us. She should get a husband. That's what she should do. Join us, single mother, and you'll get a tax break and a strong sense of superiority over anyone who lives outside social norms! Yeah! Yeah! CONSERVATISM!!!!!!!

 

This Marriage Tax break is only for couples with one wage earner.

 

I would expect that this tax break wouldn't apply to people who are claiming unemployment benefits or their unemployment benefits would be lowered to incorporate this tax break.

 

Meaning that the only married couples who actually benefit from this are the ones who can afford for one of them to be a house wife / husband.

 

It might be the cynic in me but I can only really think of one group that those types might fall into...

[Awol]

This Marriage Tax break is only for couples with one wage earner.

 

I would expect that this tax break wouldn't apply to people who are claiming unemployment benefits or their unemployment benefits would be lowered to incorporate this tax break.

 

Meaning that the only married couples who actually benefit from this are the ones who can afford for one of them to be a house wife / husband.

 

It might be the cynic in me but I can only really think of one group that those types might fall into...

 

I think it only applies to families with one wage earner who are paying the basic rate of tax, i.e. not the "rich" - or even the moderately comfortable.

[thetrees]

This Marriage Tax break is only for couples with one wage earner.

 

I would expect that this tax break wouldn't apply to people who are claiming unemployment benefits or their unemployment benefits would be lowered to incorporate this tax break.

 

Meaning that the only married couples who actually benefit from this are the ones who can afford for one of them to be a house wife / husband.

 

It might be the cynic in me but I can only really think of one group that those types might fall into...

I think that in this situation you are being cynical.

When my kids were born (relatively close together), we took the decision that my wife wouldn't go back to work until both were at school. During that time we managed to pay the mortgage, household bills and feed the kids. We had no holidays and managed to go out for a drink together (not a meal) every other month. Our kids were raised to eat meals at the table, which during that period was cheap plastic garden furniture. The wonderful woman that my wife is, I retained my season ticket, a major 'luxury' All of this was done under the backdrop of the largest and longest overdraft that we have ever had.

That was our choice. Money was very tight, and we were certainly not 'poor'. It was a very happy period of our life adventure together, but any extra help would have been much appreciated.

So if there are any young couples out there like we were, who can definitely benefit from this, then I think that it is a good thing.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Just curious how much is this tax break worth? Isn't it something like the basic tax payable on £1000, so about £200, or about £3.85 per week, every little helps. Is it only going to be for married couples, surely they would have to at least  include anyone in a formal civil partnership. Maybe A better idea would be for any couple surviving on one income that qualifies for basic taxable rate, that any unused tax allowance from one can be transferred between them, by filling in an end of year tax return. This would actually be fairer and break the strange position were for tax purposes two people cohabiting are treated as distinct individuals, but once benefits are claimed they suddenly become one entity. It really should be one or the other.

 

I know Australia have a  tax break for anyone financially responsible for someone with no income and not claiming benefits, but this is available to partners even if not married and even adult children IIRC. (in the case of children both partners can be earning) I actually believe this is fair but like everything the devil is in the detail.

 

On the help to buy, helping those struggling hard working normal people buy their £600,000 modest abode (yes it will be available to properties worth that much) This is purely a tax underwritten house price inflating mechanism, it's well recognised people feel better off when house prices rise despite the fact that usually the opposite is true. House price inflation and market stimulation will also increase the headline GDP figure whilst creating at best zero to modest real GDP increases (actual real production of goods, assets and infrastructure), It's an exercise that will encourage the shuffling of money around the economy to give the illusion  of growth than stimulating real growth. allowing claims of decreasing the national debt in percentage terms to GDP and hence Austerity has been a success. It's a smoke and mirrors exercise, yes some people will benefit, but probably not the people struggling to afford a home I have seen help to buy schemes introduced it has always caused house price inflation,

 

But maybe I'm missing the point and it's all about balance and fairness

£12 billion to be saved, persecuting the sick, disabled and unemployed by attacking their benefits on one side and £12 billion to be given over to propriety speculation on the other side to inflating housing prices and maybe pumping up a nice housing bubble.

 

Yes houses are too expensive in ration to incomes, Things should be done to tackle the terrible affordability of houses, but policy likely to inflate their prices seems a little counter intuitive to anyone with more than a modicum of intelligence and common sense, but we are taking Gideon Osbourne here so that explains an awful lot, never mind when the bubble deflates we can look forward to providing more bailouts and austerity.

 

Plenty of action could be taken with the estimated £12 billion cost of this scheme which would genuinely help people to get into home ownership, create real growth and jobs, But real help would revolve around well thought out actual real investment in real projects and infrastructure.

Edited September 29, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[drat01]

It seems the caring sharing face of the Tory party and the Right wing shines through like a beacon this morning.

 

Eric Pickles is on tape telling a child abuse victim  to "adjust their medication" when they confront him, and Cameron says a Labour policy is "nuts" and then says "he doesn't want to get into an argument with the mental health lobby"

 

They really are scum 

Edited September 29, 2013 by drat01

[drat01]

 

This Marriage Tax break is only for couples with one wage earner.

 

I would expect that this tax break wouldn't apply to people who are claiming unemployment benefits or their unemployment benefits would be lowered to incorporate this tax break.

 

Meaning that the only married couples who actually benefit from this are the ones who can afford for one of them to be a house wife / husband.

 

It might be the cynic in me but I can only really think of one group that those types might fall into...

I think that in this situation you are being cynical.

When my kids were born (relatively close together), we took the decision that my wife wouldn't go back to work until both were at school. During that time we managed to pay the mortgage, household bills and feed the kids. We had no holidays and managed to go out for a drink together (not a meal) every other month. Our kids were raised to eat meals at the table, which during that period was cheap plastic garden furniture. The wonderful woman that my wife is, I retained my season ticket, a major 'luxury' All of this was done under the backdrop of the largest and longest overdraft that we have ever had.

That was our choice. Money was very tight, and we were certainly not 'poor'. It was a very happy period of our life adventure together, but any extra help would have been much appreciated.

So if there are any young couples out there like we were, who can definitely benefit from this, then I think that it is a good thing.

 

Ahhhh the "good old days" argument - sorry mate but that is just not the case now as times were certainly different then and certainly are now for the very people this is aimed at - or supposedly aimed at, given it being more of a PR (as it is disaster) than any real attempt to this Gvmt inflicted hardships