The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread

[Chrysalis]

Social clensing started, they moving poor people to B&B's outside of london.

Strange - when I left the RAF (through no fault of my own), and had to give up a three-bedroomed house and move into a bedsit in Leeds (because that was all I could afford), I don't remember it be called "Social Cleansing"....

Can I just state for the record that I find the use of the phrase "Social Cleansing" totally abhorrent, and Jon Cruddas should know better (and I think he does) than to use a term that most people immediately connect to "Ethnic Cleansing" - it's a very cheap emotive shot, and below the standards I thought Jon Cruddas had.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange - when I left the RAF (through no fault of my own), and had to give up a three-bedroomed house and move into a bedsit in Leeds (because that was all I could afford), I don't remember it be called "Social Cleansing"....

Can I just state for the record that I find the use of the phrase "Social Cleansing" totally abhorrent, and Jon Cruddas should know better (and I think he does) than to use a term that most people immediately connect to "Ethnic Cleansing" - it's a very cheap emotive shot, and below the standards I thought Jon Cruddas had.

Yes there's been quite a lot of that sort of language emanting from various opposition MPs and union leaders lately. I don't suppose they could just be trying to stir up trouble to suit their own agenda though.....

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

We're being a little over-dramatic now, don't you think?

I actually agree with some of your points re the Bankers and House Price inflation, but when you descend into emotive harangues using terms like "involuntary euthanisia" and "enforce it with a whip", you are drifting off the beaches of reality and dabbling your feet in the shallow waters of fantasy (imho). What's your next proposition - that the Government are setting up "death panels" and "internment camps"? You may wish to contact Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - they have said it all before......

btw, as I said before, I agree with some of your points re Bankers, but you seem to have missed out the flagrant over-spending by the previous Government of monies they (and the country) didn't have - or doesn't that fit in with your world-picture?

What else would you call policy creation knowing it will result in a near certain level of poverty driven premature death ?

As for enforcement with a whip, what else do you call forcing people who are no longer comercially viable in a capitalst state to work placements who have become ill and disabled at the hands of our industrious state with the threat of removal of their benefit ?

Nothing melodramatic here, past experience with various government departments tells me I should look to the worst case scenario and judging by the words of the current administration this is perhaps going to be the worst administration since Hitler.

"Britain needs Leadership not Partisanship" proof we are not in this together by Mr Camerons own words by trying to set himself and his so called coalition apart from the rest of the nation, further more I put it these measures are in fact "an act of blatant political partisanship" as political leadership is nothing without a political cause to look towards, however this was to me a clear and concise message now he is in power he cares not for the interests of the general public or their support in these measures or anyone else that dares to stand against his parties policies.

And when the going gets tough, lets just point our fingers at the failings of the previous government to detract from our own bad policies.

Calm down, calm down - you'll blow a blood vessel.

btw, I invoke Godwin's Law on this.

[peanut]

On one hand you have a type of person like Hugh, who reminds us at any opportunity to let us know just how good his life is and how well he's doing, from how big his projects are and how much they are worth right down to his lovely sounding diet of fine food, wine and single malts. Though saying that, I can't blame him one bit, he's earnt it so why not. I'd say he's smug but that's how the other half live so fair enough and I can accept that no probs.

And on that same hand those type of people really don't know how it feels it live in fear when things are already far more worse than they can already comprehend. I suppose 'those' other people (the genuine sick etc) are just collateral damage and it's okay and seemingly totally acceptable to be ignored at the same time. As long as they are okay and their lifestyles aren't too affected, the others don't stand a chance.

I do have my own thoughts, and they'll probably go against those more affluent obviously, but my opinions at the end will mean less than the words from my others. That's how it feels. I don't care much about the causes, the bankers, politicians etc, I care about how I'm going to live or if I can, I don't have the luxury of the blame game to worry about.

I now feel at a point where I already feel worthless, now I will have to justify that and be told that I am now fit and healthy (miraculously) because I can turn on a tap, pick up a coin, reach in my top pocket and for me to be able to that, everything else doesn't matter. And if that's the case then how I feel now is just the beginning of the end.

(This is in no disrespect to Hugh I must add).

[Chrysalis]

one thing for sure is the lib dems are dead.

they werent voted in to savage the public sector and attack the poor.

Originally Posted by peanut

(This is in no disrespect to Hugh I must add).

Then why name him? I think your post sounds totally disrespectful towards him.

Originally Posted by peanut

On one hand you have a type of person like Hugh, who reminds us at any opportunity to let us know just how good his life is and how well he's doing, from how big his projects are and how much they are worth right down to his lovely sounding diet of fine food, wine and single malts. Though saying that, I can't blame him one bit, he's earnt it so why not. I'd say he's smug but that's how the other half live so fair enough and I can accept that no probs.

And on that same hand those type of people really don't know how it feels it live in fear when things are already far more worse than they can already comprehend. I suppose 'those' other people (the genuine sick etc) are just collateral damage and it's okay and seemingly totally acceptable to be ignored at the same time. As long as they are okay and their lifestyles aren't too affected, the others don't stand a chance.

I do have my own thoughts, and they'll probably go against those more affluent obviously, but my opinions at the end will mean less than the words from my others. That's how it feels. I don't care much about the causes, the bankers, politicians etc, I care about how I'm going to live or if I can, I don't have the luxury of the blame game to worry about.

I now feel at a point where I already feel worthless, now I will have to justify that and be told that I am now fit and healthy (miraculously) because I can turn on a tap, pick up a coin, reach in my top pocket and for me to be able to that, everything else doesn't matter. And if that's the case then how I feel now is just the beginning of the end.

(This is in no disrespect to Hugh I must add).

Erm, I know exactly how the "other half" live, because that is the background I come from, and worked very hard not to stay in (that does not make me better than anyone else, just more fortunate in that I have some abilities (including the one to work very hard and long hours), and have been given the chance to use those abilities, and be comfortable); my mum, before she passed away, lived in those circumstances, and was supported by her family (when we could convince her to take help), and my sister still does, in Glasgow.

For many years in the 80s and 90s we as a family went without, because we ploughed everything we had into our house and family - so no holidays (except for visiting family in other parts of the country), no going out for meals, and very few "toys".

Fortunately, in the last ten years or so, I have progressed up the career ladder, and have some spare money (well, up to this year I did - with two kids at University, we are eating in to our savings), so this has enabled my wife and I to enjoy life a bit more, for which I feel no shame - it's one of the reasons why I work long hours.

I do not think I am better than anyone else, just slightly better off - I refuse to feel guilty because I have been able to do reasonably well for myself and family, but I do not think less of others who have not been able to.

"One size fits all" condemnations are not appropriate, whichever part of the socio-economic or political scale one is; they just lead to deceptive ad hominem attacks and sweeping simplistic prejudical judgements, imho.

[Taf]

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has denied that large cities will be "cleansed" of poorer people following cuts to housing benefits.

Mr Clegg said the suggestion, made by Labour's Chris Bryant, was "deeply offensive to people who have witnessed ethnic cleansing".

Mr Bryant told MPs that capping housing benefit at £400 a week would force 200,000 people from urban areas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11627021

He may deny it, but an exodus will happen.

Just repeating it doesn't make it so.....

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Taf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11627021

He may deny it, but an exodus will happen.

From that link:

Mr Clegg replied: "We all indulge in a bit of hyperbole but I have to say to him quite seriously to refer to 'cleansing' would be deeply offensive to people who have witnessed ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world.

"It is an outrageous way of describing [the situation]."

He added: "What we are saying is that, for people who receive housing benefit, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to say that it won't hand out more in housing benefit than people who go out to work, pay their taxes, play by the rules will do when they look for housing themselves.

"We are simply suggesting there should be a cap for family homes of four bedrooms of £400 a week. That is £21,000 a year.

"Does he really think it's wrong for people who can't afford to live privately in those areas that the state should subsidise people to the tune of more than £21,000? I don't think so."

Sounds eminently sensible to me. £21k a year is nearly an average full-time salary before tax. I can see no justification for any family receiving housing benefits on that scale. In fact, I think it could be lowered quite a bit. If that means people have to move, then so be it.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Taf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11627021

He may deny it, but an exodus will happen.

I would find paying 400 quid a week rent pressurising. I am apparently in the top decile of income. Why is it ok for the tax payer to be paying more than this to keep people with no income of their own living in areas I cannot afford to?

This will reduce rents, supply of housing will go up as there will be less 'Palace de Welfare' in high cost areas and demand will drop as welfare won't cover them.

This is entirely fair and appropriate. It is an insult to those tax payers who live in the 'burbs as they cannot afford the city that their taxes are paying welfare to cover the rents of people in precisely the areas they cannot afford.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I would find paying 400 quid a week rent pressurising. I am apparently in the top decile of income. Why is it ok for the tax payer to be paying more than this to keep people with no income of their own living in areas I cannot afford to?

This will reduce rents, supply of housing will go up as there will be less 'Palace de Welfare' in high cost areas and demand will drop as welfare won't cover them.

This is entirely fair and appropriate. It is an insult to those tax payers who live in the 'burbs as they cannot afford the city that their taxes are paying welfare to cover the rents of people in precisely the areas they cannot afford.

It should also be noted that £21k is pretty much the median full time salary (before tax) in the UK. For the uninitiated: this means that 50% of the people in full time employment in the UK earn less than £21k. I consider myself firmly left of centre, but I cannot see any justification for benefits of that order being paid out to a family just because they have lots of children and live in an expensive area. It's a travesty...

Why should anyone be paid benefits so they can live in an area they could not afford if they were working? What incentive is there for these people to get back into work? As Ig says: it's an insult to the 50% of the UK population that earn less than that. Given the levels of deprivation that we have in the UK we really have worthier causes to spend this money on.

[Ignitionnet]

It being so late I'm feeling rather lyrical.

Welfare is a safety net, to catch people when they fall and stop them hitting the ground. It must never be a trampoline that puts people in places they wouldn't normally go.

Housing Benefit is the big thing here. Some who previously made 300GBP/week couldn't have afforded 400GBP/week rent, why should they be able to live in a property of that cost when others are paying for it for them?

As a disclaimer though I think that benefits such as HB and JSA for the unemployed should be paid as a sunsetting % of the previous 2 years income prior to becoming unemployed and this fund should be ringfenced, that way at least some of an individual's taxes feel more like an 'insurance' and less like throwing money into a bottomless pit and people neither gain nor lose massively from spending a brief period on welfare, with the sunsetting encouraging a return to work sooner rather than later.