Principals? Principles?



I hate to be a pedant, but hate ignorance more.

Unfortunately, if they are unpopular, they don't get elected in the first place.

That's why the bstrds lie through their teeth to get elected.

I fully realise that it would dilute the 'left' vote, to the point of not being returned to power in the foreseeable future but I am ever more leaning towards the unions cutting thier funding to Labour and using the money to field their own candidates.



All politicians are overtly pandering to "the middle", while covertly propping up the rich and ignoring the poor. Labour should remember that the party was born out of the trades union movement, a movement that still contributes 50% of its funding.

Won't be necessary according to the man himself on TV this morning for every one in the NHS is fully supportive of his party's reforms and he had lots of facts implanted in his brain to spiel out in evidence, well he convinced himself anyway.



Even when the interviewers pointed out that when the likes of midwives start calling for industrial action then you might be losing the popular vote in the NHS his only reply was "Ah yes, THE UNIONS don't like what we're doing, but their members do..."



Ri-iiiight.



Could be an interesting summer ...

They're good at that, the Tories, having lots of impressive "facts" and figures to quote from.. Unfortunately most of them are either plain wrong or way off the mark. According to DWP's own figures 0.5% of DLA claimants are fraudulent. According to IDS it is 94%, this was then duly reported in the DM as "fact". All propaganda shoite imo.

The really annoying thing with a statement like "94% of claimants are fraudulent" is the follow-on question that the politicians never ask of the civil servants which goes something like "If you're so sure of that figure then why the fook did you pay all the money out in the first place and are you willing to be personally responsible for getting it back ?"

Whilst I am fully behind the outrage at cancer sufferers having their benfits time limited, I am not sure why people are arguing against the £26k cap. I am a graduate who has worked all my life, I have a wife n three kids, and I still earn less than the £35k that this equates to. Why should my taxes go to support people who do not work, at a higher standard than I can enjoy myself? £35k is not poverty, in anyone's book.

The point that needs to be made is that capitalism should benefit the employee and not just the shareholder.



It used to be like that. The balance got lost somewhere when it became possible to make a fortune off a companies increasing share price rather than sharing the profits it actually made.



This is a big reason we see irresponsible capitalism whereby companies get sold because the share price has gone up (partly due to takeover speculation) and hang the the consequence to the employees. It also means money is made not by producing stuff but off the increasing value of the shares. You would think shares would not increase in price without a sound basis for the business but speculation sees high values attached to companies that even make a loss.



Another point to make is that capitalism ceases to generate [ugainful[/u employment and tax revenue when it strays into profiteering territory. By this I mean vast profits from companies are no good if the employees are exploited and taxes are avoided (even if legal mechanisms exist to do both).



It really ought not to be that hard to get these two points across and also come up with polices that aim to deal with these two issues. It also ought to be possible to get this across to the greedy or stupid that they are going to be better off if these issues could be tackled. Stopping Philip Green avoiding paying income tax and companies from avoiding paying corporation tax ought not to be a difficult sell.

Simple. It's a political move not one that is supposed to make anything fairer or even save that much money (about £300 million is a pee in the ocean). They have chosen "the average salary" to make it popular to people like you. For a start what the f**k does "average salary" mean in the UK? It varies from area to area wildly, for example it's being able to afford rent on a 4 bed house in Durham, or a studio flat in London, and this is the big component of these higher benefits - keeping people housed. It makes no sense.

I would rather see kids housed (and many people with kids will lose their homes) than worry about their benefits being slightly over an arbitary number pulled out of the air to suit a political purpose. The benefit system needs to be flexiblle and it needs to be fair on the people it's there to protect.



The cap won't save you or me any money personaly, I won't suddenly see extra salary through tax cuts and I won't see any services improving. So, do you really want to see kids put out on the street becuase you feel envious of people on benefits, many of whom are victims of the total lack of growth in our economy? Would you rather be on benefits than have a job? And are you willing to accept that with unemployment rising to record 15 year highs that if you lose your job you and your kids, instead of being given time to sort something out, would find yourself on the street?

Not surprising that you've swallowed the tory rhetoric hook, line & sinker

One way to cut the benefits bill would be to only allow State welfare, housing benefits, health care to those born in the UK, those who have lived and worked here for 16 consecutive years, those who have been "invited" here as refugees from distaster, etc and those from countries with reciprocal arrangements of equivalent generosity for UK people residing there (eg EU countries).



That would seem fair, reasonable and popular to me.

The only people you appear to have missed out are illegal immigrants (who can't claim benefits anyway) and those awaiting grant of entry/deportation.



As you say, it would be hugely popular, especially among the Dally Wail & express readers, it would also save about 4/5th of buggerall in the greater scheme of things.