camerons latest missive

[45002]

Cameron is trying to please the right wing in the Tory party,trying to save his job failing miserable with his speech today,half of the Conservative cant stand him away becuse of his privilege background.

 

It just shows the Nasty party never went away under Cameron and is Still alive and kicking.

 

Some said early on to me today,the rate where going back in time.

 

Workhouse house will be back in fashion

 

http://www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/victorians/workhouses.html

 

The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, ensured that no able-bodied person could get poor relief unless they went to live in special workhouses. The idea was that the poor were helped to support themselves. They had to work for their food and accommodation.

Need I say any more :-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x Edited June 25, 2012 by 45002

[Clive.Watson]

Thats what happens when you vote in an individual with an affluent upbringing and silver spoon.

 

Yet again, the divide between the working and upper class is just going to get larger.

[debt4get]

They have made it just as the big multi-nationals wants people really afraid of losing there jobs and will end up giving employer hours of free labour just to keep their employment. This is staff contacts to stay behind and tidy up the large retailer’s floor for free and this could be up giving free labour for up to 10 hours a week.

Wonder what is next on their agenda for everyone, I bet it will be not be a 5% tax cut like boy George gave to their millionaire friends and themselves the front cabinet. The rest of us can go and eat cake.

Boy George had no problems in making the poorest pensioners pay for that nice benefit for them. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr It is enough to make you want to vote for BNP next time around.

well known high street chain by me...talking to one of staff yesterday...she has to come in an hour early for no pay to clean the store before shift...then on an 8 hour shift they get a single 15 min break...all young people on minimum wage....if you work over 8 hours you get a single 20 min break....

[osdset]

well known high street chain by me...talking to one of staff yesterday...she has to come in an hour early for no pay to clean the store before shift...then on an 8 hour shift they get a single 15 min break...all young people on minimum wage....if you work over 8 hours you get a single 20 min break....

 

Cameron & Co's brave new world, and exactly what the Work Programme was set up to deliver.

[Crocdoc]

What's Cameron and Co doing about his friends and their tax avoidance scheme, where they set up a company in Jersey and stack massive amount of tax free money there and then his rich friend gets back a salary from that company in the form of the minimum wage at 1% tax payable, the rest is taken back by way of a loan from their company that they have set up. Of course there is no tax due on a loan and this scheme legal. TAKE THAT for a cunning scheme you can also get an honour for it as well. :mad2:

 

Yes ! it is remarkable how the tax evasion issue has suddenly gone silent. No doubt Mr Cameron received a severe slap from his extreme right wing cronies for raising this issue. I wonder how many pairs of conservative underpants needed changing following this GAFF ?

Edited June 25, 2012 by Crocdoc

[osdset]

Makes you laugh really, Cameron's father pioneered these schemes, he salted away £10 million if memory serves me right

[sadone]

Saw this online......

 

New Statesmen have published a response to Cameron’s attack.

 

With these words, Cameron is perpetuating the biggest myth about housing benefit: that it is a benefit for the unemployed. The truth is that just one in eight claimants is out of work (not a statistic that you’ll find reported in most papers). The majority of those who claim housing benefit, including the under-25s, do so to compensate for substandard wages and extortionate rents. A recent study by The Building and Social Housing Foundation showed that 93 per cent of new housing benefit claims made between 2010 and 2011 were made by households containing at least one employed adult.

 

It is meaningless of Cameron to claim that the housing benefit budget is “too large” without considering why. The inflated budget, which will reach £23.2bn this year, is the result of a conscious choice by successive governments to subsidise private landlords rather than invest in affordable social housing. Yet rather than addressing the problem of stagnant wages and excessive rents, Cameron, in a bid to appease his querulous party, has chosen to squeeze the already squeezed.

 

Oh dear......

[Slatted]

well known high street chain by me...talking to one of staff yesterday...she has to come in an hour early for no pay to clean the store before shift...then on an 8 hour shift they get a single 15 min break...all young people on minimum wage....if you work over 8 hours you get a single 20 min break....

 

 

I thought that there were Laws about the amount work that had to be done without at least a 30 minute break?

 

I do realise that to keep their jobs people will agree to anything and not mention it to anyone ...but from my experience I get ill without the ability to take sufficient breaks (I do not mean excessive) so would lose my job through that anyway....lose/lose.....

[Nystagmite]

I may be getting a little confused here but from what i can deduce when children leave home the parents are now forced to move into a single bedroomed house or have their HB cut, so these families wont have any room for the kids to move into anyway.

 

I think this still happens.

[Slatted]

I think this still happens.

 

The rules are tightening so it will happen more because of the number of rooms determining the amount of benefit paid...I have heard rumour that this will also effect the disabled who were prevouslly deemed able to have a second bedroom because they needed an overnight carer at times.....

[down'n'out]

I thought that there were Laws about the amount work that had to be done without at least a 30 minute break?

 

That now would be for a (young worker)16-18 year olds when the working day is over 4.5 hours.

 

For adults it depends. By default(without collective agreement or a workforce agreement) it is 20minutes.(working time regulations 1998)

 

One of the main problems I see now, is the classification of employment. Most now are classed as workers rather than employees, so have a lot less rights.

Unemployed get forced to register with agencies, so employers can then take them on as casual or self employed and see them as workers. So the agencies get a nice earner, the employers can do what they want with the worker, and the worker is left with little rights and minimal pay.

[Guest amianne]

Just one question. Whats the wage like in the DWP propaganda dept love?

 

Wages are geared to market forces. The more that you can offer an employer, the greater the wage. Not everybody is on NMW. I read day in day out about how low is NMW. It is low because the employer has plenty of choice as to whom to employ. get a qualification and some work experience under your belly and the wage will go up.

 

I'll give you an example. A friend of mine (29) qualified as a solicitor and had a salary of £35,000 a year. He decided to specialise, taking 2 years to complete the course and was offered three weeks ago on the strength of word of mouth, with no formal interview (just coffee and a chat at lunch time) a new job with a salary of £65,000 a year!

 

A wage is equal to the effort that you put in. No employer will want to lose a key worker, a good worker and would be more than willing to agree to a better wage.

[Guest amianne]

Where in the original idea does it say that capable 20 year olds should have their rent paid for them

 

Where does is say that they cant then?

And some 20 years havent paid any stamps because there are no jobs out there, my daughter just landed first job, thirteen months of trying, but luckily lives with me for now, well looks like for a long time to come

Have you ever claimed housing benefit then?

If you have, who are you to say somebody else shouldnt be entitled then?

 

I was talking about the original concept of the Welfare State. It was narrow, and was geared purely for those in two camps.

 

the homeless, the physically handicapped, and unmarried mothers

and

elderly Britons who required supplementary benefits to make a subsistence living and obliged local authorities to provide suitable accommodation for those who through infirmity, age, or any other reason were in need of care andattention not otherwise available.

 

What has happened is that for whatever reason it has grown into what it is today.

 

Cameron is suggesting that we go back, in part, to basics, to look after those that were originally intended to be looked after, and not provide a means for a living.

 

Back in 1948, people accepted that they had to fend for themselves and it worked.

 

Why do we now have this massive benefit system that probably 65% of the population take money out of?

 

The answer to the last part of your question - no, I have never claimed Housing Benefit. I always cut my cloth when I needed to and see Housing Benefit only for those in great need. Being out of work does not create great need. Without the benefit in place, people would soon find a way round their problems.

[sadone]

Well imo Cameron is utterly, utterly wrong.

 

Great cartoon in todays Guardian about this.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/jun/24/david-cameron-welfare-reform?CMP=twt_gu

 

Why do we now have this massive benefit system that probably 65% of the population take money out of?

 

I suspect you don't actually know the real figure, do you?

 

Wages are geared to market forces. The more that you can offer an employer, the greater the wage. Not everybody is on NMW. I read day in day out about how low is NMW. It is low because the employer has plenty of choice as to whom to employ. get a qualification and some work experience under your belly and the wage will go up.

 

I'll give you an example. A friend of mine (29) qualified as a solicitor and had a salary of £35,000 a year. He decided to specialise, taking 2 years to complete the course and was offered three weeks ago on the strength of word of mouth, with no formal interview (just coffee and a chat at lunch time) a new job with a salary of £65,000 a year!

 

A wage is equal to the effort that you put in. No employer will want to lose a key worker, a good worker and would be more than willing to agree to a better wage.

 

Thats not exactly what I was asking hon. The DWP let you start early today then?

 

A wage is equal to the effort that you put in.

 

Oh and this bit? Utter b*llocks imo. Sorry If you truly believe that then there's no hope for you love. Try talking to some Teachers for a start, to say nothing of low paid jobs such as cleaners.

Edited June 25, 2012 by sadone

[Guest amianne]

Age should be irrelevant. If you're in need, you're in need.

 

Why then was the original Act written that way? Maybe they could forsee that if they had have left it open ended, everyone and anyone would be climbing on board looking for some money - just like it is now!

[Nystagmite]

The rules are tightening so it will happen more because of the number of rooms determining the amount of benefit paid...I have heard rumour that this will also effect the disabled who were prevouslly deemed able to have a second bedroom because they needed an overnight carer at times.....

 

For many disabled people, there's also the issue of accessible housing Many also have a support network of friends, family and doctors. They can't just move to the next city. They'll lose their support network.

[sadone]

Why then was the original Act written that way? Maybe they could forsee that if they had have left it open ended, everyone and anyone would be climbing on board looking for some money - just like it is now!

 

 

In your opinion. There, fixed that for ya.

[Crocdoc]

Makes you laugh really, Cameron's father pioneered these schemes, he salted away £10 million if memory serves me right

 

This is another interesting point, in as much as the very man who uses the term immoral to describe these schemes may in turn receive an inheritance through unpaid tax. Still I suppose it will keep him out of the Universal Credit income band.

 

Mr Cameron has clearly missed the point when reading stories about Robin Hood.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Crocdoc

[rainbo]

Has everyone seen today's news? Cameron wants to limit benefits for the unemployed with "large" families!

 

The government will look to cap child benefit for jobless families so that they receive it for only three children. Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said on the Today programme that taxpayers have to think carefully about how many children they can afford, but asked: “Those not in work, do they do the same thing?"

Data shows that more than 150,000 people who have been claiming income support for more than a year have three or more children, while 57,000 claimants have four or more children. The Prime Minister is keen to remove incentives within the welfare system for people to continue having children when they lack the financial means to pay to support them.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/welfare-reform/47611/camerons-welfare-crackdown-whats-chop#ixzz1yo4oekXS

 

[sadone]

Yeah more 'poor bashing' combined with a healthy dose of 'lets distract the public away from the real issues', such as Cameron and his governments tax dodges.

[Guest amianne]

Has everyone seen today's news? Cameron wants to limit benefits for the unemployed with "large" families!

 

 

 

Sorry all but that is another of my gripes!

 

We can't afford to have children yet, and there is no way that want to go back to work after having them. So what do we do? We use contraception until my hubby is earning enough that will enable me to stay at home and bring the children up. And as for the number of children, if we can't afford to have them and support them then we stick at the number we can afford.

 

I don't think it fair on society that women produce their offspring with no thought on the costs involved, but see the Welfare State as being there to support them instead.

[Guest amianne]

might the reason people give to claim housing benefit is that their are no jobs out there

those that are out there are mostly minimum wage, fixed term or zero hour contracts

no traning or apprenticeships

all affordable housing sold off, landlords asking to high rents, what about rent caps

 

not everybody works in the financial industry

give us back a manufacturing industry

 

employment is a RIGHT

not a privilege

 

If you had the right type and level of qualifications AND have experience gained either through previous paid employment or voluntary work, you would find a job quite easilly.

 

All you have to do is look on the various agency websites - there are 1,000's of jobs on offer!

[Guest amianne]

They have made it just as the big multi-nationals wants people really afraid of losing there jobs and will end up giving employer hours of free labour just to keep their employment. This is staff contacts to stay behind and tidy up the large retailer’s floor for free and this could be up giving free labour for up to 10 hours a week.

 

Isn't that quite normal? I know in one supermarket I have a friend that always clocks off at least 10 mins late every day, after she has cleaned and tied up ready for the next shift. It is called 'having pride'.

I wouldn't employ anybody that wasn't prepared to put in a little bit extra.

 

Wonder what is next on their agenda for everyone, I bet it will be not be a 5% tax cut like boy George gave to their millionaire friends and themselves the front cabinet. The rest of us can go and eat cake.

Boy George had no problems in making the poorest pensioners pay for that nice benefit for them. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr It is enough to make you want to vote for BNP next time around.

 

The tax cut was made simply because people found way round it. So it defeated the object of the exercise. Bu reducing it, they are hoping the tax take will more than make up for the loss.

[Guest amianne]

I may be getting a little confused here but from what i can deduce when children leave home the parents are now forced to move into a single bedroomed house or have their HB cut, so these families wont have any room for the kids to move into anyway.

 

But the point is, the kids wouldn't have moved out in the first place if they couldn't get Housing Benefit would they?

[Guest amianne]

Cameron is trying to please the right wing in the Tory party,trying to save his job failing miserable with his speech today,half of the Conservative cant stand him away becuse of his privilege background.

 

It just shows the Nasty party never went away under Cameron and is Still alive and kicking.

 

Some said early on to me today,the rate where going back in time.

 

Workhouse house will be back in fashion

 

http://www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/victorians/workhouses.html

 

Need I say any more :-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x

 

Why are you quoting a law that was repealed in 1948?

 

The National Assistance Act 1948 is an Act of Parliament passed in the United Kingdom by the Labour government of Clement Attlee. It formally abolished the Poor Law.