+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 89
General Chat Thread, George Osborne can't do this job. in General; Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster If you were capable of thinking beyond soundbites, Flatpackhamster, why do you even get up in ...
  1. #46

    mattx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    9,229
    Thank Post
    1,056
    Thanked 1,066 Times in 623 Posts
    Rep Power
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    If you were capable of thinking beyond soundbites,
    Flatpackhamster, why do you even get up in the morning ?
    Last edited by mattx; 6th December 2012 at 01:46 PM.

  2. #47

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,095
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,309 Times in 1,785 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    Chancellors don't run the economy.
    Huh? 'The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the title held by the British Cabinet minister who is responsible for all economic and financial matters'... So, in a way, they do... That is their job, to make sure the economy works.

    (Yes, that is from Wikipedia, but its as good a source as any for a definition of this job).

  3. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    631
    Thank Post
    52
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by mattx View Post
    Flatpackhamster, why do you even get up in the morning ?
    Oh look. A soundbite.

  4. #49

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    631
    Thank Post
    52
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Huh? 'The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the title held by the British Cabinet minister who is responsible for all economic and financial matters'... So, in a way, they do... That is their job, to make sure the economy works.

    (Yes, that is from Wikipedia, but its as good a source as any for a definition of this job).
    The civil service runs the economy, in the same way that they run the whole country.

    Look, your average minister is in place for 18 months, tops. He or she barely has time to get to know the ropes before there's an election or a reshuffle. Whereas your mandarin - he's had 30+ years of learning the system. He knows how everything works and how to get what he wants.

    A chancellor is often in place for longer. Clever chancellors, like Kenneth Clarke or Geoffrey Howe, bend the civil service to their will. Other chancellors - such as Gordon Brown - stuff the civil service with their cronies, which achieves a similar thing but also means that the Treasury is currently full of Labour staffers doing their damndest to shaft the Tories.

    Ministers sign what's put in front of them. They either have to be very forthright, devious or intelligent to get around doing what the civil service thinks is in the best interest of the country. A few manage it - Gove is a rare example in this parliament of a minister putting his stamp on a department (regardless of whether you agree with what he's doing, or, like MattX, have read in the Guardian that he's a bad man).

  5. 2 Thanks to Flatpackhamster:

    Gibbo (6th December 2012), Robz (7th December 2012)

  6. #50
    Gibbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    878
    Thank Post
    203
    Thanked 339 Times in 234 Posts
    Rep Power
    91
    At last some common sense instead of tabloid-induced rage.

  7. #51

    mattx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    9,229
    Thank Post
    1,056
    Thanked 1,066 Times in 623 Posts
    Rep Power
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    Oh look. A soundbite.
    Have a picture one too:


  8. Thanks to mattx from:

    tech_guy (6th December 2012)

  9. #52

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Watford
    Posts
    845
    Thank Post
    355
    Thanked 89 Times in 65 Posts
    Rep Power
    42
    A two tier problem exists, the welfare state which has become a way of life for most and the corporate tax dodgers. Now a lot of the CEO's will argue that they bring employment to the country, which we cannot argue, but they as a whole bring minimum wage employment, which means these employees are still requiring top ups from the welfare state, provided by the squeezed middle. All I can visage is our national budget disappearing down a hole like sand in an egg timer with no option to turn the glass around...
    Last edited by andyturpie; 6th December 2012 at 03:47 PM. Reason: wrong whole (oops)!

  10. #53

    broc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,046
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 401 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Gibbo View Post
    At last some common sense instead of tabloid-induced rage.
    I always thought the Guardian talked a lot of common sense.....

  11. #54

    nephilim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dunstable
    Posts
    11,101
    Thank Post
    1,430
    Thanked 1,693 Times in 1,266 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    364
    Those people blaming those on Jobseekers or welfare, let me put it too you like this. In August I lost a job that I thoroughly enjoyed and would have probably kept doing had it not been for various factors, I lost the job due the fact that the economy is not as strong as it was, and therefore the company had to downsize...last in, first out. I was also being seen by an ENT for my ear problems. Since then, I was on jobseekers, looking for work.

    Spending the money from jobseekers on interviews, getting to the jobcentre and help paying my bills. I have since come off job seekers and gone on to employment support allowance due to a condition called Menieres Disease. I don't want to be on ESA or JSA or DLA (which after 13 weeks of ESA I will be transferred onto). I want to work! Many people in my situation want to work but physically can't, I can't go for more than 5 hours without getting vertigo, and to be frank, that on top of the deafness, is not fun at all.

    Why lumber those of us that want to work and are willing, yet incapable, with those that are work shy.

  12. Thanks to nephilim from:

    ButterflyMoon (7th December 2012)

  13. #55
    mthomas08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,488
    Thank Post
    117
    Thanked 143 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by nephilim View Post
    Those people blaming those on Jobseekers or welfare, let me put it too you like this. In August I lost a job that I thoroughly enjoyed and would have probably kept doing had it not been for various factors, I lost the job due the fact that the economy is not as strong as it was, and therefore the company had to downsize...last in, first out. I was also being seen by an ENT for my ear problems. Since then, I was on jobseekers, looking for work.
    Thats the problem, people like you suffer so should the government just continue to dish out money to everyone or actually review each and every case. My other half was actually making an effort to find work when she was on job seekers and she also admitted that she would have made more effort if she wasnt getting money.

    I have said this from day one, how about scrap giving out money and start giving out a credit system. Money to pay your bills? That be taken direct from the credit system. Food/travel again paid by a credit system, as a result the money you get keeps you going and prevents you from buying fags, drinks, drugs and anything else you dont actually need. Problem is the government is trying to stop people from relying on the benefit system. And sadly people like your self are going to get affected, this is also all aimed at those who refuse to work and purposely have kids to stay at home and live the easy life. Dont know whats worse having kids for the wrong reasons or taking money just to live it easy with their large 40" TVs.

    I have sympathy for you but you can't hide the fact that people who do work, pay tax and have done for years get shafted day after day while others refuse to work, just have kids to get a large house where people like me struggle to move out.

  14. Thanks to mthomas08 from:

    Robz (7th December 2012)

  15. #56

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,243
    Thank Post
    772
    Thanked 804 Times in 670 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by mthomas08 View Post
    I have said this from day one, how about scrap giving out money and start giving out a credit system. Money to pay your bills? That be taken direct from the credit system. Food/travel again paid by a credit system, as a result the money you get keeps you going and prevents you from buying fags, drinks, drugs and anything else you dont actually need. Problem is the government is trying to stop people from relying on the benefit system. And sadly people like your self are going to get affected, this is also all aimed at those who refuse to work and purposely have kids to stay at home and live the easy life. Dont know whats worse having kids for the wrong reasons or taking money just to live it easy with their large 40" TVs.
    While I might agree with your sentiment, I don't necessarily agree with your implementation. I think this crosses a line where we should be free to determine our own fates and not be dictated to by central government. I think there is a minimum amount that an individual could comfortably live on without falling into abstract poverty, and I think as a society we should be proud of the fact that generally we believe in this state supported safety net. But that's what it needs to be, a saftey net. An I think the whole benefits system really should be viewed and means tested as such. The litmus test for me is - how would I want to be treated if I was suddenly made redundant?

  16. 2 Thanks to tmcd35:

    Robz (7th December 2012), sparkeh (7th December 2012)

  17. #57
    rich_tech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    919
    Thank Post
    114
    Thanked 116 Times in 100 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    I think that is the divide though and now it seems to have tipped towards highlighting the bad and tarring everyone with the same brush, we all know the difference I think between the genuine unemployed and the "lifestyle" unemployed, I doubt many people have a problem with the genuine unemployed in this country who want to work and are trying to get work, its just the cases of people on "lifestyle" who bring the bad name too it.

  18. 2 Thanks to rich_tech:

    Robz (7th December 2012), sted (7th December 2012)

  19. #58
    Pyroman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,160
    Thank Post
    413
    Thanked 130 Times in 96 Posts
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by rich_tech View Post
    I think that is the divide though and now it seems to have tipped towards highlighting the bad and tarring everyone with the same brush, we all know the difference I think between the genuine unemployed and the "lifestyle" unemployed, I doubt many people have a problem with the genuine unemployed in this country who want to work and are trying to get work, its just the cases of people on "lifestyle" who bring the bad name too it.
    Well said, my other issue with some people is that there are jobs out there but some are deemed beneath them. If I had no job and was desperate i'd take anything going, you can always keep looking for another job while you do something that brings in some money for you

  20. #59

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,259
    Thank Post
    1,138
    Thanked 1,463 Times in 980 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    457
    Urgh I hate this Daily Mail style 'lets bash the people on benefits' talk. Its ugly and plays straight in to the Governments hands.

    There's been a lot made over benefits cheats recently which plays to the pitchfork toting masses who feel cheated by people getting stuff for free.
    Some facts:
    1) The Government's own figures put benefit fraud at 1% of the total welfare bill so works out about 1bn, yes a lot of money but:
    2) A conservative estimate of money lost through tax avoidance by the rich is 12bn

    So rather than kicking the people at the bottom of society why aren't we angry at the people at the top who are avoiding paying what they morally should and getting richer and richer under the Tory Government?

    The Tory toffs must be laughing at us at right now.

  21. Thanks to sparkeh from:

    tmcd35 (7th December 2012)

  22. #60
    mthomas08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,488
    Thank Post
    117
    Thanked 143 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    While I might agree with your sentiment, I don't necessarily agree with your implementation. I think this crosses a line where we should be free to determine our own fates and not be dictated to by central government. I think there is a minimum amount that an individual could comfortably live on without falling into abstract poverty, and I think as a society we should be proud of the fact that generally we believe in this state supported safety net. But that's what it needs to be, a saftey net. An I think the whole benefits system really should be viewed and means tested as such. The litmus test for me is - how would I want to be treated if I was suddenly made redundant?
    Well unless some one comes up with a better idea, at the moment they have what as choices?
    Scrap the system
    Continue on with it as it is
    Give it a hefty review

    Either way they are doomed, because even reviewing each case people are still going to suffer who are victims and not benefit cheats, or having kids just for the sake of it.

    As far as im concerned those who dont want to be a part of the credit system have a choice of finding a job or taking nothing from the government?
    Having been jobless a while back and struggling for money I accepted any job I could find, which was basic manual labour work. It paid the bills. Surely if you are innocent you dont mind at all in taking credit which pays your bills and rent - this is what people are fuming about isnt it?
    Unless you are telling me that benefit money is just there for you to do what you want when you want.

    Either way if people dont want a credit system then I will simply agree with the hefty cuts on the entire system. Personally I would be more than happy to take a system that paid my bills while I try to get another job then I can actually spend what I want on the money I earn. Unless its all just another excuse for people to fiddle a system and use technicality on why they should be given money "Sorry I have bills to pay" then head off own the pub every night.

  23. Thanks to mthomas08 from:

    Robz (7th December 2012)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Can Moodle do this
    By Simcfc73 in forum Virtual Learning Platforms
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th March 2012, 11:31 AM
  2. Can I do this?? Any Ideas Welcome!!
    By ljlbray in forum Web Development
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25th June 2010, 12:42 PM
  3. Can I do this?!
    By swpmre in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th March 2010, 10:14 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29th November 2009, 12:09 AM
  5. can i do this??
    By mikeymike in forum Windows Vista
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 5th November 2008, 01:20 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •