Cameron considers big cuts to benefits!

[Ari]

Has David Cameron been reading Pistonheads? At last, the government consider stopping getting knocked up at sixteen being the route to a life of housing and benefits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

Whether they have the bottle to implement this is a different matter of course...

[Jasandjules]

Can we start with MPs expenses..... People in glass houses and all that.

[powerstroke]

Ari said:

Has David Cameron been reading Pistonheads? At last, the government consider stopping getting knocked up at sixteen being the route to a life of housing and benefits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

Whether they have the bottle to implement this is a different matter of course...

More spin and bluster... will never happen

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

Can we start with MPs expenses..... People in glass houses and all that.

Different topic entirely. At least they get off their backsides and contribute to society..

[JagLover]

Ari said:

Whether they have the bottle to implement this is a different matter of course...

As the article says it will be a proposal for the next parliment as you could never get something like that through in coalition with the Lib Dems.

[Puggit]

JagLover said:

Ari said:

Whether they have the bottle to implement this is a different matter of course...

As the article says it will be a proposal for the next parliment as you could never get something like that through in coalition with the Lib Dems.

I suspect it will also require all the human rights lawyers to stop working.

[JagLover]

Puggit said:

I suspect it will also require all the human rights lawyers to stop working.

A Tory majority government would also be free to replace the Human Rights Act with the proposed British Bill of rights.

[AndrewW-G]

Jimboka said:

Jasandjules said:

Can we start with MPs expenses..... People in glass houses and all that.

Different topic entirely. At least they get off their backsides and contribute to society..

Yes they do . . . . .in this case, by getting the country into huge amounts of debt and refusing to unhitch us from the Euro implosion.

If I were an MP, I'd want to try and restore public faith in democracy, by setting an example and keeping my promises.


My guess, is that this is all talk and that nothing will actually change

[Laughingman21]

AndrewW-G said:

Yes they do . . . . .in this case, by getting the country into huge amounts of debt and refusing to unhitch us from the Euro implosion.

If I were an MP, I'd want to try and restore public faith in democracy, by setting an example and keeping my promises.


My guess, is that this is all talk and that nothing will actually change

You could always run for parliament yourself, or is this "all talk and nothing will actually change"?

[ED209]

For once I 100% support this, Its about time. I really dont understand how recently benfits have been going up at a time when hardly anyone else has had a pay rise for a couple of years.

[thinfourth2]

powerstroke said:

More spin and bluster... will never happen

Yep its a headline grab nothing more

[Skywalker]

JagLover said:

A Tory majority government would also be free to replace the Human Rights Act with the proposed British Bill of rights.

The Human Rights Act (and the ECHR) is not the problem.

The problem is some is the wky interpretation of it by some of the Guild of Shysters, sorry, Politicians, sorry, Lawyers - and then also the mindless and faceless bureaucrats who have no knowledge of the Act / Convention and have misinterpreted it to mean it is an excuse to never make a difficult decision against an individual.

If they focussed on the concepts of Public Authorities, Positive Obligations, the fact that not everything in the Articles is Absolute, together with the point that Rights can be balanced against one another so that the more important ones "trump" the less important ones it would be easier.

But then, who needs knowledge when we have media inspired drivel narrative of it.

[Apache]

Jimboka said:

Jasandjules said:

Can we start with MPs expenses..... People in glass houses and all that.

Different topic entirely. At least they get off their backsides and contribute to society..

Really? so you don't think the majority are in the profession because of their ego, desire to feel important and line their pockets? I can't, for the life of me, think what (for example) Diane Abbott or Margaret Moran has done for society

[JagLover]

Skywalker said:

The Human Rights Act (and the ECHR) is not the problem.

I never said the ECHR was the problem (and changing our own legislation would have no impact on their decisions). But removing the Human Rights Act would limit the ability of British judges to overrule the decisions made by elected politicians, which is the issue here.

To my knowledge the ECHR does not rule on benefits issues.

[Mr_B]

Apache said:

Jimboka said:

Jasandjules said:

Can we start with MPs expenses..... People in glass houses and all that.

Different topic entirely. At least they get off their backsides and contribute to society..

Really? so you don't think the majority are in the profession because of their ego, desire to feel important and line their pockets? I can't, for the life of me, think what (for example) Diane Abbott or Margaret Moran has done for society

It is a different topic and expenses are not the same as benefits. Starting to go even further off topic by asking what drives Diane Abbot to be an MP.

[Apache]

Mr_B said:

Apache said:

Jimboka said:

Jasandjules said:

Can we start with MPs expenses..... People in glass houses and all that.

Different topic entirely. At least they get off their backsides and contribute to society..

Really? so you don't think the majority are in the profession because of their ego, desire to feel important and line their pockets? I can't, for the life of me, think what (for example) Diane Abbott or Margaret Moran has done for society

It is a different topic and expenses are not the same as benefits. Starting to go even further off topic by asking what drives Diane Abbot to be an MP.

True, back on topic then.
This seems an odd way to do it, surely it would be easier to cap increasing benefits for more than 2 children ending lifetime tenancies and means testing assisted housing.

[Mr_B]

This subject more than anything I feel will be Camerons defining moment. He has to try and reverse years of free money and a mindset that's developed over decades, that huge amounts of benefit money and the choosing between work and benefits, is somehow a right that's being taken away.
Being a politician though means he's also going to be under pressure not to cut too deep in order to try and keep some votes for next time. Changing the whole ethic this country has towards work and benefits is perhaps the greatest long term thing he could ever do for his country.

[heppers75]

One of the big challenges here is this sentence I think: -

Downing Street said they were Conservative plans for after the next general election.

There are several million eligible voters who this will effect that will I am sure get all fired up to vote whomever promises to keep them on the gravy train!

[sirtyro]

Ari said:

Has David Cameron been reading Pistonheads? At last, the government consider stopping getting knocked up at sixteen being the route to a life of housing and benefits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

Whether they have the bottle to implement this is a different matter of course...

Interesting reading some of the comments on that page. It seems a lot of people who write in favour of DC get negative rating and those who are fighting for the 'rights' of the welfare state get positive ones. I find that sad if true that most people in the UK would be happy for the welfare state to continue as it is.

As one person wrote 'the welfare system should be a safety net not a hammock'.

[OdramaSwimLaden]

thinfourth2 said:

Yep its a headline grab nothing more

Sadly.