Cameron considers big cuts to benefits!

[AJS-]

Caulkhead said:

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

Gordon Brown.

Honestly, hear me out.

He would have carried on down the route of taxing, borrowing and spending, he would have had to have a debt default, face a vote of no confidence and probably call a general election about now.

Meanwhile Cameroon would have seen that their middle of the road st wasn't going to cut it, and hopefully got some mad bd right wing lunatic in who just wanted to slash and burn his way through the public sector with no mercy whatsoever.

Come the inevitable general election we would have had the very real choice between continuing down the Labour path or idiocy and entitlement or changing course to actually sort things out.

As things stand, all we have is a wasted few years in limbo while a weak Tory party and a Lib Dem like Liberal Democrat party try and muddle through in some half hearted "at-least-we're-wasting-a-bit-less-than-Labour" government that can not possibly succeed in anything, while Labour get the chance to regroup, come up with some more wild promises to win the idiot vote (the biggest demographic in any general election) and then get re-elected next time around.

[RYH64E]

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...

Saying it isn't the same as doing it.

[Steffan]

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

I am afraid this is entirely correct.

Cameron is a PR man. This is spin. In reality the coalition has a PSBR level still way beyond affordability. The UK is therefore falling further into unaffordable national debt. The mantra of modern politicians is do whatever is needed to get elected. TB was probably the best exponent. Cameron is a good second.

These individuals need to maintain benefits lifestyles in order to keep the Benefit Society votes and therefore will not cut benefits to any real extent. That is why the UK is steadily sinking into a morass of excessive government borrowing.

To judge modern politicians you need to examine what they have actually done themselves. This government has NOT faced the overspending problem. Nor will the next. The one after that will probably have to because by then defaults by Sovereign states will have occurred and the dreadful effects will be all too apparent. From that point on fear of catastrophic failure will begin to shape economic policy for all the parties.

But this I fear is just spin. So much hot air. No substance.

[BoRED S2upid]

21bn on housing benefits is massive I would love to see all the other benefits and what they cost the tax payer every year.

[Steffan]

BoRED S2upid said:

21bn on housing benefits is massive I would love to see all the other benefits and what they cost the tax payer every year.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11466178 Sets it all out about £180 billion from memory

[Caulkhead]

martin84 said:

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

The treasury claim it will save 10% of the total housing benefit budget, which is £20bn. So £2bn if you're as bad at arithmetic as you are at being bothered to google.

martin84 said:

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

I said free choice of candidate, not free choice whether to vote or not.

martin84 said:

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.

When you voted, you knew it was for five years. If there was a general election tomorrow with the current party leaders, which way would you vote this time bearing in mind Churchill's incisive quotes on the topic:

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

and, especially for you,

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

[Caulkhead]

AJS- said:

Caulkhead said:

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

Gordon Brown.

Honestly, hear me out.

He would have carried on down the route of taxing, borrowing and spending, he would have had to have a debt default, face a vote of no confidence and probably call a general election about now.

Meanwhile Cameroon would have seen that their middle of the road st wasn't going to cut it, and hopefully got some mad bd right wing lunatic in who just wanted to slash and burn his way through the public sector with no mercy whatsoever.

Come the inevitable general election we would have had the very real choice between continuing down the Labour path or idiocy and entitlement or changing course to actually sort things out.

As things stand, all we have is a wasted few years in limbo while a weak Tory party and a Lib Dem like Liberal Democrat party try and muddle through in some half hearted "at-least-we're-wasting-a-bit-less-than-Labour" government that can not possibly succeed in anything, while Labour get the chance to regroup, come up with some more wild promises to win the idiot vote (the biggest demographic in any general election) and then get re-elected next time around.

I can see the logic of your argument, but after 13 years of labour gerrymandering and importing immigrants into marginals which meant a percentage of the vote that would've given labour a majority, gave the tories a coalition. I can only see labour being in for longer making that worse.

[Caulkhead]

RYH64E said:

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...

Saying it isn't the same as doing it.

Either way, the cap still applies.

[VinceFox]

Aiui the proposal is to be implemented after the next election?

Hmm.




Sorry luv, if you want a lift home you put out BEFORE i start the engine.

[Caulkhead]

VinceFox said:

Aiui the proposal is to be implemented after the next election?

Hmm.




Sorry luv, if you want a lift home you put out BEFORE i start the engine.

8th of April 2013 is the actual date the housing benefit cap comes into force:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hb-benefit-cap-draft-re...

I don't think a date has been set for the under 25's bit yet.

[VinceFox]

Caulkhead said:

VinceFox said:

Aiui the proposal is to be implemented after the next election?

Hmm.




Sorry luv, if you want a lift home you put out BEFORE i start the engine.

8th of April 2013 is the actual date the housing benefit cap comes into force:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hb-benefit-cap-draft-re...

I don't think a date has been set for the under 25's bit yet.

Ok but i bet i still feel teeth.

[deadslow]

Caulkhead said:

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?

Christ, you're having a laugh, right? Best of a bad bunch? Worst among equals? A Tit for tits to vote for?

[AJS-]

Caulkhead said:

I can see the logic of your argument, but after 13 years of labour gerrymandering and importing immigrants into marginals which meant a percentage of the vote that would've given labour a majority, gave the tories a coalition. I can only see labour being in for longer making that worse.

Again though, the coalition isn't doing much to fix that - immigration may have slowed because the economy is tanking, but within the EU we don't even have much scope to control immigration, and the problem is indeed getting worse as more of those new immigrants and their off spring awaken to a political landscape where the nice Labour party let them in, gave them benefits, housing and even created jobs for them, and now the nasty Tory party are talking about taking some of them away.

By the next general election in 2015, someone born in 1997 will be able to vote. Think what a warped view of politics such a person will have!

[Skywalker]

PR man Cameron says "Let's talk about cutting benefits" just as the media & public want to know more about tax avoidance.

Oh really?

[Guybrush]

It would be great to see some action and witness such a policy actually implemented quickly; I can just picture the economy-damaging lefties wailing and gnashing their teeth. So come on Cameron: JFDI.

Remember everyone, just how bad things were under Labour - refresh your memories if you're starting to forget already.

[98elise]

I'm surprised people doubt it will happen. Its an easy and reasonable target, and are already seeing changes.

I'm a Landlord, and HB recently changed in my area so that single people under 35 only get single room rates (ie house share) in HB, rather than enough to fund a small flat.

The cap is also coming, and that makes huge sense. You can rent a 2 or 3 bed house in my area (kent) for £650 pcm, and thats within commuting distance of London.

[Countdown]

Caulkhead said:

......but after 13 years of labour gerrymandering ......!

Any chance we could put this myth to rest? Boundary changes nearly always favour the Conservatives.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

Caulkhead said:

......but after 13 years of labour gerrymandering ......!

Any chance we could put this myth to rest? Boundary changes nearly always favour the Conservatives.

The only myth is in your post.

British electoral system unfairly gerrymandered in favour of Labour

Article said:

David Cameron needs to win 2 million more votes than Gordon Brown just to draw level in Parliamentary seats. Earlier research by David Butler showed that the Tories could win 40 per cent of the vote, with Labour on just 30 per cent, and the Conservatives would still be seven seats short of an overall majority.

Tories would have avoided coalition if proposed boundary changes were in place in 2010

Article said:

The Conservatives may have been able to avoid entering a coalition with the Liberal Democrats had the 2010 election been carried out using the new proposed boundaries for the United Kingdom, analysis by the Guardian suggests.

[muffinmenace]

It needs to be done, I became homeless at 16 and didn't qualify for any benefit, only a bed at a hostel. Luckily I was taken in and I've managed to get on my feet. At the time I'd have given anything for my own roof over my head, but I could see at the time that it just wasn't feasible solution because I didn't have a womb or a Bulgarian passport saying I was born 9 years earlier, there's only so much money in the pot.

Girls who get themselves pregnant do not need a flat, their family can support them, if their family refuse, then those parents can have their benefit taken away because it's needed more for their daughter. Hopefully this could further extend the ongoing fall in teen pregnancy.

Countdown said:

Any chance we could put this myth to rest? Boundary changes nearly always favour the Conservatives.

I never saw it like that, Labour got a lot of inner city seats?

[Countdown]

Guybrush said:

Remember everyone, just how bad things were under Labour - refresh your memories if you're starting to forget already.

They weren't bad for everybody. My salary tripled between 1997 - 2009. The school my nephews/nieces go to was massively refurbished. Quality of healthcare we've recieved has been fantastic.