Cameron considers big cuts to benefits!

[Countdown]

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..

The "contribution to society" us debatable. However they are two discrete issues - no reason why they BOTH can't be dealt with.

Step in the right direction from DC in my opinion

[Steameh]

sirtyro said:

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'.

Indeed, I was just browsing through some of the comments, and all the negative ones support the move. Some of the ones with highly positive ratings make no sense whatsoever. Particularly the ones where people believe having their own house is a god given right.

[Apache]

I've added my piece, lets see you guys rate me up then

[Ozzie Osmond]

Hmmm

Remove housing benefit for "people under 25". Presumably he means "adults under 25".

So family of kids aged 1, 3, and 5 will still get a roof over their heads and, of course, their 20-year old mother will need to be on hand to look after them....

[Du1point8]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Hmmm

Remove housing benefit for "people under 25". Presumably he means "adults under 25".

So family of kids aged 1, 3, and 5 will still get a roof over their heads and, of course, their 20-year old mother will need to be on hand to look after them....

Really... You trying to be a tt? Or just confirming it?

[Pesty]

This is just something to keep the back benchers quiet and everybody else stop talking about tax avoidance.

[AJS-]

Considering it? Shouldn't he have given the matter some thought before becoming Prime Minister?

[martin84]

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..

Well that's debatable

[Elroy Blue]

Anybody who believes this nonsense is naive at best.

Cameron has said it's something they would like to do after the next election. Which means it's crap.

What they have actually achieved is 'lets change the subject quick'. Put out a soundbite, the press sieze on it and stop talking about how completely inept Cameron is.

[deadslow]

Cameron is a joke PM. Right thinking people laugh at him.

[Caulkhead]

deadslow said:

Cameron is a joke PM. Right thinking people laugh at him.

Out of the choices at the last election, who would you have prefered?

[martin84]

Caulkhead said:

Out of the choices at the last election, who would you have prefered?

Is none of the above an option?

When the best even a Tory leaning website can manage in defence of a Tory PM is 'he's less st than the other guy' you know we're in trouble.

[Caulkhead]

powerstroke said:

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

That's what most people on here said when they proposed capping housing benefit. Be interesting to see who's right.

[martin84]

Caulkhead said:

That's what most people on here said when they proposed capping housing benefit. Be interesting to see who's right.

Yeah but they've capped it at a level which is high enough to ps off a minimal amount of people while not really saving the Treasury that much.

[turbobloke]

martin84 said:

Caulkhead said:

Out of the choices at the last election, who would you have prefered?

Is none of the above an option?

When the best even a Tory leaning website can manage in defence of a Tory PM is 'he's less st than the other guy' you know we're in trouble.

And in more trouble if one of the more st i.e. even more incompetent 'other guys' were 'in' - though one has a foothold at the mo and that's certainly a cause of trouble - so it's quite reasonable to work with the best alternative there is, since something better is unavailable by definition.

[Caulkhead]

martin84 said:

Caulkhead said:

Out of the choices at the last election, who would you have prefered?

Is none of the above an option?

When the best even a Tory leaning website can manage in defence of a Tory PM is 'he's less st than the other guy' you know we're in trouble.

That wasn't what I asked. At an election you don't have a free choice, you have to pick from the actual candidates, not from your wishlist. I dare say most tories would've prefered someone else but it wasn't an option.

Now answer the question!

[martin84]

turbobloke said:

And in more trouble if one of the more st i.e incompetent 'other guys' were 'in' so it's quite reasonable to work with the best alternative there is, since something better is unavailable by definition.

But is that good enough? You told me yesterday we have the finest Universities in the World and the vast majority of our Political production line has been through them, yet it doesn't seem to do them much good. This country pays billions for Government. Shouldn't we expect - actually, demand - better than what we have?

Why are we so keen to settle for second best just because the only alternatives are worse?

[Caulkhead]

martin84 said:

Caulkhead said:

That's what most people on here said when they proposed capping housing benefit. Be interesting to see who's right.

Yeah but they've capped it at a level which is high enough to ps off a minimal amount of people while not really saving the Treasury that much.

If you're right, why are 40% of London landlords and 33% of national landlords saying it will stop them renting to housing benefit claimants? 33% is an odd definition of minimal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/18/worr...

[Caulkhead]

martin84 said:

turbobloke said:

And in more trouble if one of the more st i.e incompetent 'other guys' were 'in' so it's quite reasonable to work with the best alternative there is, since something better is unavailable by definition.

But is that good enough? You told me yesterday we have the finest Universities in the World and the vast majority of our Political production line has been through them, yet it doesn't seem to do them much good. This country pays billions for Government. Shouldn't we expect - actually, demand - better than what we have?

Why are we so keen to settle for second best just because the only alternatives are worse?

Because there is no known voting system I can think of that allows everyone to have the person they think will be the best PM? If you can think of a system that allows that, I personally would be most interested in it.

[martin84]

Caulkhead said:

If you're right, why are 40% of London landlords and 33% of national landlords saying it will stop them renting to housing benefit claimants? 33% is an odd definition of minimal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/18/worr...

But can you get me the figure on what it will actually save the Treasury every year, in total?

Caulkhead said:

That wasn't what I asked. At an election you don't have a free choice, you have to pick from the actual candidates, not from your wishlist. I dare say most tories would've prefered someone else but it wasn't an option.

Well you do have a free choice, you can abstain from voting but thats the pedantry part over.

Caulkhead said:

Now answer the question!

I didn't deny the Conservative's were the least st option in 2010. I voted for them in 2010 because I wanted to put Gordon out of his misery and I didn't see the point in voting for a minor party because I felt it'd further engineer a hung parliament.

Well that went well didn't it.