What will the next raft of cuts be?

[Harrystottle]

I think child benefit will be limited to either two or three children. Which I have no problem with.

 

As for "It's all the fault of the wicked banksters".

 

If they are so wicked, shouldn't they have been watched more closely? Who was it who introduced a "light touch" regulatory system on these wicked banks?

 

Answers on a postcard to Mr E. Balls, Westminster, because he appears to have forgotten.

[biotechpete]

Seeing as the Conservative party won't deign to tell us, what do you think the next round of cuts will be?

 

They want to save £12 billion so the cuts are going to be harsh. That's why they daren't tell us what they're going to do.

 

Personally, I think child benefit will cop it, and once again the poor and unemployed will be screwed until the pips squeak, (is there really any more they can squeeze out of them?) Carers allowance will probably be means tested, and pensioners perks will go.

 

What you can bet on, is they will be hidden in the small print or somehow be spun as 'helping us.'

 

I'm watching Ed on TV and he won't tell us either. Every area bar education and health will be cut under labour but nothing to say how or where.

[Anna B]

I think child benefit will be limited to either two or three children. Which I have no problem with.

 

As for "It's all the fault of the wicked banksters".

 

If they are so wicked, shouldn't they have been watched more closely? Who was it who introduced a "light touch" regulatory system on these wicked banks?

 

Answers on a postcard to Mr E. Balls, Westminster, because he appears to have forgotten.

 

Who deregulated the banks in the first place? Remember the Yuppies? - that was the start of the rise of the bankers.

 

Maybe it should be written on Margaret Thatcher's tombstone.

[Happ Hazzard]

The people who receive the vast majority of public spending via benefits are the landlords who receive billions in benefits payments via housing credits and the employers who save billions by the public purse, in the form of working tax credits, picking up the tab for their low wages.

So if housing benefit and working tax credit was abolished, would the left agree that the cuts were now targetting the rich?

[truman]

 

Which was not cut under the tories and on top of that you have all the romany threads etc, people let in by the tories

 

You don't answer the question though.....

[F. Sidebottom]

Yes people are starving in Britain TODAY....Just because it doesn't affect you, doesn't men it's not happening. Why do we have charity run food banks?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/starve-benefit-sanctions-unemployed-hungry-government

 

Had the banks not been 'given' the money, they would have crashed....Ok, since, they have started to make money again....But I wonder who's gonna buy all the shares the government plan to sell off?.....It won't be me!

 

Rich people perhaps?

 

People who are 'starving' in Britain today are doing so through their own choices. I'm not interested in that.

 

I've been to third world country's. I've seen starving people. We don't have anyone remotely like that in this country. Unless they choose to spend their income elsewhere.

 

The rise in foodbank use is always going to occur - even if we had a fully wealthy society then some people would choose to spend their money elsewhere by taking free food from foodbanks.

 

I don't fall for all that bleeding heart pitiful liberal rubbish. You may, as it probably suits your political agenda. But I'm more realistic.

 

As for the banks, this would be the same banks that do (and always have) paid a huge contribution to the country in corporation tax and employer taxes. Who employ thousands of staff who pay a huge amount in personal taxes. Who now pay very generous bank levy charges. Oh those greedy banks. They issued shares to the government (they weren't gifted the money). And one day those banks (or investors) will buy those shares back. Whoever does buy them back, it doesn't matter - the government will get the money back.

 

And who would have been hit hardest if this arrangement hadn't been put in place? The average saver on the street. You and me.

 

But hey, that doesn't fit with the old Porsche driving yuppie stereotype being hosed down in champagne at the taxpayers expense though does it?

Edited May 1, 2015 by F. Sidebottom

[L00b]

People who are 'starving' in Britain today are doing so through their own choices.

Personal accountability and responsibility, as a moral concept and inherent life component, was comprehensively destroyed in the past 20-odd years through policies of interference intended to secure political dependency: it's a drum which you (and I, and others) can keep beating until the cows come home, but which won't get any traction on here I'm afraid.

[truman]

Personal accountability and responsibility, as a moral concept and inherent life component, was comprehensively destroyed in the past 20-odd years through policies of interference intended to secure political dependency: it's a drum which you (and I, and others) can keep beating until the cows come home, but which won't get any traction on here I'm afraid.

 

You mean the government shouldn't have to do everything for everyone? Well there's a novel thought..it'll never catch on y'know

[tinfoilhat]

Who deregulated the banks in the first place? Remember the Yuppies? - that was the start of the rise of the bankers.

 

Maybe it should be written on Margaret Thatcher's tombstone.

 

You do know there were 13 years of a labour government with a large majority who could have put that right don't you? We're they incapable? Did they forget?

 

Any argument that starts with "maggie started it" is a very poor one and clearly a damning of a blair and brown. Is it even worth voting labour if the can't reverse anything the Tories do?

[Anna B]

You do know there were 13 years of a labour government with a large majority who could have put that right don't you? We're they incapable? Did they forget?

 

Any argument that starts with "maggie started it" is a very poor one and clearly a damning of a blair and brown. Is it even worth voting labour if the can't reverse anything the Tories do?

 

No they couldn't. It would have put tham at a huge disadvantage as our economy was based almost entirely in financial services. Major manufacturing was all but finished thanks to Thatcher, how were they going to make up the shortfall? Whether they knew just how dodgy the financial services were is a moot point, they couldn't act alone in a global society and in an industry that operates on global 'confidence.'

 

As for the next round of cuts, you can be sure they will affect the poorest in society least able to afford it. The bankers and the richest will be unaffected and continue to amass even more wealth. We will see real poverty grow (it's already here in case you hadn't noticed,) and affect more and more people. You might not even notice if you're one of the fortunate ones who doesn't need a carer, or hospital services, or a particular treatment, or if you keep your job, and have decent housing etc.

 

But remember any one of these things can happen to you, and, as people are finding out, when they need help, the services they always assumed were there in times of need, are gone.