The July Budget

[Tubey]

The proposed cuts will hit the poor and vulnerable, majority of which already vote Labour. This is a very calculated attack on a demographic that electorally will have little effect on future results. I will be very interested to see if any of the cuts have a big impact on the over 65s. I doubt they will given the stranglehold the Tories have with this age range (Always traditionally a high voting turnout to).

The sad thing is we live in a country now which has the attitude of 'if it doesn't effect me I'm not bothered about it', I strongly believe this attitude was born in the 1980s of out Thatcherism. The sense of community and helping each other out was replaced one of greed and self interest. Only when people fall on hardship do they realise the brutal, cruel and unfair impact of such cuts.

100% correct.

 

[Blue 1]

No you're right mate, it's probably about 5 quid from the lower 50% while those with their hand in the wallet already have all these new international trade deals they benefit from.

Nope.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

The proposed cuts will hit the poor and vulnerable, majority of which already vote Labour. This is a very calculated attack on a demographic that electorally will have little effect on future results. I will be very interested to see if any of the cuts have a big impact on the over 65s. I doubt they will given the stranglehold the Tories have with this age range (Always traditionally a high voting turnout to).

The sad thing is we live in a country now which has the attitude of 'if it doesn't effect me I'm not bothered about it', I strongly believe this attitude was born in the 1980s out of Thatcherism. The sense of community and helping each other out was replaced one of greed and self interest. Only when people fall on hardship do they realise the brutal, cruel and unfair impact of such cuts.

Aye.

Idiots People allowing themselves to be brainwashed into: "It's the poor's fault they're poor" as well.

 

[chewee]

The only good thing to come out of this will be the resultant all-but humanitarian disaster that will make the Tories unelectable for another 25 years come the next election.

To put it into perspective, nearly half the benefit bill in the UK is from state pensions, and some again to just debt. "Actual" benefits like DLA or JSA account for about £40bn. If the £12bn comes off those benefits alone, you're talking of an approx. 25% cut across the board, squarely aimed at the most vulnerable in society, and even if you account for pensions it's still an approx. 10% cut across the board, and that's before you look at tax credits getting chopped too.

All of this whilst we're greasing the palms of foreign countries with "aid" to develop nuclear programs.

There's going to be a lot of ashamed people who voted Tory over the next few years when the effect of this becomes clear - or at least they should be.

It is disgusting that someone who works 35 hours a week can still be paid such pittance they have to go through the humiliation of relying on state handouts to keep their head above water. Now this could be withdrawn or severely cut - what a kick in the teeth for the 'hard working people' Osborne likes to praise. They abolished tax for people earning below a certain level but will now claw all that back & more by removing in work benefits. Crafty c*nts.

 

[The Esk]

In 2006 David Cameron said this:

"I believe that poverty is an economic waste, a moral disgrace. In the past we used to think of poverty in absolute terms - meaning straightforward material deprivation.

That's not enough. We need to think of poverty in relative terms - the fact that some people lack those things which others in society take for granted. So I want this message to go out loud and clear - the Conservative Party recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty."

Yet the IFS stated this week that even before the cuts which are about to be instigated that the number of children living in relative poverty rose from 2.3 million in 2013 to 2.6 million in 2014 and is forecast to grow by a further third before 2020.

Why is this important? It's important because we know (as discussed prior to the election) that the prospects for a child are inextricably linked to the financial circumstances the child is born into.

The country needs to increase productivity in order to meet its structural deficit not reduce expenditure in areas which result in greater numbers of economically inactive families with reduced prospects of future earnings, let alone earnings growth.

It is economic madness, driven by political ideology.

 

[daylightrobber]

The proposed cuts will hit the poor and vulnerable, majority of which already vote Labour. This is a very calculated attack on a demographic that electorally will have little effect on future results. I will be very interested to see if any of the cuts have a big impact on the over 65s. I doubt they will given the stranglehold the Tories have with this age range (Always traditionally a high voting turnout to).

The sad thing is we live in a country now which has the attitude of 'if it doesn't effect me I'm not bothered about it', I strongly believe this attitude was born in the 1980s out of Thatcherism. The sense of community and helping each other out was replaced one of greed and self interest. Only when people fall on hardship do they realise the brutal, cruel and unfair impact of such cuts.

Actually, the majority of people who are going to be hit hardest don't or can't vote at all.

Edit: & then there was another few million who voted UKIP

 

[Basil Fawlty]

What is called foreign aid is, in fact, mostly export promotion. In fact, the aid does not go primarily the poor and needy in the countries because they’re not good consumers. If you look at the way the aid works it is basically aid from the US taxpayer to US businesses, which enable the businesses to sell to the countries on money that the US taxpayer gives them. It’s very small amount I should say, but what there is turns out substantially to be export promotion. And in a realistic sense it doesn’t leave the country. It goes from one pocket into another pocket, from the pocket of tax payers into the pockets of the exporter. Now sometimes the population that receives it, has benefits, sometimes not, often it’s harmful to them, because of the way it is selected.
So for example, take the Food for peace, what could be more benign than that. Giving food to the third-world. Well, you know it’s not benign. I mean when you look at it, the effects are to undercut the native agriculture, to make people dependent on US agriculture businesses.

In fact it is designed for that purpose, it looks benign but it is hardly so you can see the way this work over decades.

Noam Chomsky

 

[Minimeister]

It is disgusting that someone who works 35 hours a week can still be paid such pittance they have to go through the humiliation of relying on state handouts to keep their head above water. Now this could be withdrawn or severely cut - what a kick in the teeth for the 'hard working people' Osborne likes to praise. They abolished tax for people earning below a certain level but will now claw all that back & more by removing in work benefits. Crafty c*nts.

If the Tories had their way mate, people would still be getting paid £3 an hour so their mates in big business got even richer. I've been done with politics since the election, I didn't think there was as many selfish 'I'm alright Jack' Tory voters still around so I'm done with it. I just hope that during this term their voters have a decision made by the Tories that cripple them or their families.

 

[Chang Elephant]

I didn't think there was as many selfish 'I'm alright Jack' Tory voters still around so I'm done with it.

There's them, and there's benefit users on various council estates across the UK who could not drag themselves away from the TV to vote on the day in question. No way a country with these demographics should be voting Tory.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

If the Tories had their way mate, people would still be getting paid £3 an hour so their mates in big business got even richer. .

They've got people working for their dole already ffs! Latest one I've heard the new one is to send the unemployed to a well-known meat plant in Bromborough for 12 weeks to work for their benefit. And, at the end of it, they might - just might - get an interview out of it.

As if they're gonna employ ANYONE with that amount of churn?

Scandalous.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not strictly speaking budget related, but there's a nice new service launched in the States that would be great here.

http://www.abalancingact.com/

Cities basically sign up and release how their budget is spent on various things. Citizens can then play around with setting their own budgets, taking the available money and distributing it as they see fit across the various departments.

Granted, it's only a top level look, so you'd allocate money to 'welfare' rather than 'pensions' or 'unemployment', but it provides officials with real-time feedback on what people think is important, whilst of course also encouraging citizens to devise their 'budget' based upon the real constraints of the time rather than fantasy Syreza style stuff.

 

[The Cowboy]

The proposed cuts will hit the poor and vulnerable, majority of which already vote Labour. This is a very calculated attack on a demographic that electorally will have little effect on future results. I will be very interested to see if any of the cuts have a big impact on the over 65s. I doubt they will given the stranglehold the Tories have with this age range (Always traditionally a high voting turnout to).

The sad thing is we live in a country now which has the attitude of 'if it doesn't effect me I'm not bothered about it', I strongly believe this attitude was born in the 1980s out of Thatcherism. The sense of community and helping each other out was replaced one of greed and self interest. Only when people fall on hardship do they realise the brutal, cruel and unfair impact of such cuts.

So the trade unions strikes of the 70s, and the winter of discontent, was nothing to do with greed and self-interest?

 

[daylightrobber]

So the trade unions strikes of the 70s, and the winter of discontent, was nothing to do with greed and self-interest?

Of course it was. Those who felt they were being exploited in order to feed the greed and self interest of others resorted to the last options available to them.

 

[The Cowboy]

Of course it was. Those who felt they were being exploited in order to feed the greed and self interest of others resorted to the last options available to them.

I see. So the greed and self-interest existed before 80s Thatcherism. Gotcha.

 

[daylightrobber]

I see. So the greed and self-interest existed before 80s Thatcherism. Gotcha.

There's always been greed. Thatcher promoted and encouraged it. She then went on to do what she could to prevent people suffering because of the greed of others from fighting for just reward.