Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 So 67000 will be affected saving 290mill next year. How many of those 67000 will be carers, and how much would it cost the NHS to provide staff in their place? And what if unemployment rises more than Gideon has predicted? Will that cut into the supposed saving? Find out next week, on This proposal to cap benefitsbeen saying it for a long time now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Bring back hanging, it was cost-effective. Let's not be silly. We just want to move them to a ghetto. Cheap, small housing outside of the metropolis where we don't have to look at their satellite dishes and pyjamas in kwik save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30679 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think that on the issue of where people live there is a case for stopping claimants moving to an area with high rents but forcing people out who had moved there when they could afford it is a bit much. Why though? Living in a nice place is not an entitlement. If your income is reduced then you have to cut your cloth accordingly. I wouldn't be against a six month grace period to protect those who are short-term unemployed but you cannot protect someone's 'right' to a nice house indefinitely. London is a different situation though. I'm not 100% sure how the system works in GB but in Northern Ireland there are various maximum levels of housing benefits available depending on what postcode you are in. Though none of them are particularly generous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Not saying this swings things one way or the other in a democracy but youguv polled this at the weekend and found 79% of the population was in favour. 69% of Labour voters were in favour too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Not saying this swings things one way or the other in a democracy but youguv polled this at the weekend and found 79% of the population was in favour. 69% of Labour voters were in favour too. Up to 74% want to bring back hanging. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802 Fortunately the tyranny of majority is not our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Not saying this swings things one way or the other in a democracy but youguv polled this at the weekend and found 79% of the population was in favour. 69% of Labour voters were in favour too. Up to 74% want to bring back hanging. http://ukpollingrepo...g/archives/3802 Fortunately the tyranny of majority is not our way. Quite right too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Not saying this swings things one way or the other in a democracy but youguv polled this at the weekend and found 79% of the population was in favour. 69% of Labour voters were in favour too. Up to 74% want to bring back hanging. http://ukpollingrepo...g/archives/3802 Fortunately the tyranny of majority is not our way. Quite right too. What is? The 74% or not being our way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Hang em high and hang em all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 A bit of witch burning wouldn't go amiss as well and would give the scroungers some warmth and entertainment once we take their benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What was Churchill's quote, "Democracy is fine until you meet the average voter"? or somethng like that. He's not wrong. Your average Joe hasn't the insight, impartiality, objectivity nor vocabulary to properly make an informed decision about matters of state. 74% of people want capital punishment? No they don't, 74% of people find some crimes so appalling that they want the harshest possible punishment. I'd not be surprised if the people, in all their wisdom, would vote in torture for paedophiles if we still had capital punishment. imo there should be two tiers of government, a voted in public government that is there to deal with the day-to-day issues and another tier whose purview is far-reaching policy. This tier to be made up of the greatest minds available; not politicians, but titans of business, scientists, artists, etc. The people elected are so busy scrapping for morsels of power, petty point scoring and are so terrified of upsetting someone that not much governing actually takes place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What was Churchill's quote, "Democracy is fine until you meet the average voter"? or somethng like that. He's not wrong. Your average Joe hasn't the insight, impartiality, objectivity nor vocabulary to properly make an informed decision about matters of state. 74% of people want capital punishment? No they don't, 74% of people find some crimes so appalling that they want the harshest possible punishment. I'd not be surprised if the people, in all their wisdom, would vote in torture for paedophiles if we still had capital punishment. imo there should be two tiers of government, a voted in public government that is there to deal with the day-to-day issues and another tier whose purview is far-reaching policy. This tier to be made up of the greatest minds available; not politicians, but titans of business, scientists, artists, etc. The people elected are so busy scrapping for morsels of power, petty point scoring and are so terrified of upsetting someone that not much governing actually takes place. Which is why any proposal to elect the Lords should be met with laughter and snubbing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What was Churchill's quote, "Democracy is fine until you meet the average voter"? or somethng like that. He's not wrong. Your average Joe hasn't the insight, impartiality, objectivity nor vocabulary to properly make an informed decision about matters of state. 74% of people want capital punishment? No they don't, 74% of people find some crimes so appalling that they want the harshest possible punishment. I'd not be surprised if the people, in all their wisdom, would vote in torture for paedophiles if we still had capital punishment. imo there should be two tiers of government, a voted in public government that is there to deal with the day-to-day issues and another tier whose purview is far-reaching policy. This tier to be made up of the greatest minds available; not politicians, but titans of business, scientists, artists, etc. The people elected are so busy scrapping for morsels of power, petty point scoring and are so terrified of upsetting someone that not much governing actually takes place. Which is why any proposal to elect the Lords should be met with laughter and snubbing I'm not advocating the House of Lords as it's the worst kind of old boys club there is. Not sure if that's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What was Churchill's quote, "Democracy is fine until you meet the average voter"? or somethng like that. He's not wrong. Your average Joe hasn't the insight, impartiality, objectivity nor vocabulary to properly make an informed decision about matters of state. 74% of people want capital punishment? No they don't, 74% of people find some crimes so appalling that they want the harshest possible punishment. I'd not be surprised if the people, in all their wisdom, would vote in torture for paedophiles if we still had capital punishment. imo there should be two tiers of government, a voted in public government that is there to deal with the day-to-day issues and another tier whose purview is far-reaching policy. This tier to be made up of the greatest minds available; not politicians, but titans of business, scientists, artists, etc. The people elected are so busy scrapping for morsels of power, petty point scoring and are so terrified of upsetting someone that not much governing actually takes place. Which is why any proposal to elect the Lords should be met with laughter and snubbing I'm not advocating the House of Lords as it's the worst kind of old boys club there is. Not sure if that's your point? Point being that aye the House of Lords is a load of shite, but at least it offers a different aspect to the commons and sometimes does good by reviewing legislation (quite a few experts in there like), just having it elected would make it Commons mark 2, there'd be literally no point in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Fair enough. Just to clarify I'd want rid of the HoL and replace it. But again, I'm fully aware that the reality of the world means that you'd be placing far too much faith in the hope of a benign group of people leading the country. Whereas, in fact, it's far more likely that a romantic notion like this wouldn't last a moment before the inevitable greed and duplicity of man rendering it entirely useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Am I missing something? How do you get into this non elected, non-selected group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) You've got to be a great mind, an artist or a great thinker, a titan of your chosen field. Think Chris Akabusi, Andi Peters and Ronnie O'Sullivan. They would be put into the special cabinet without a vote and develop far-reaching policy like multifaceted quantitive dissonance, because the electorate are largely thick and unable to comprehend such matters. This would sort the country out pronto and we'd be colonising Mars within 5 years. The voted-in government can deal with day to day issues like litter and getting extra dog-poo bins on the streets, possibly sort out a bursary for pooper scoopers instead. Edited January 24, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Has the Governement dropped the council house for life stategy. I think the argument was people who earn £50,000 per year shouldn't be living in a council owned house. But if they are paying their rent council tax and bills why shouldn't they. Its very rare here for a court to evict a family for rent arrears, it has to be an extreme case and lots of staff hours to prove it. After an evicition the council have to ensure that they are not duty bound to have to house the now homless person in bed and breakfast. However most go into private accommodation and we still end up paying for them. Edited January 24, 2012 by Jan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Parliament can't afford the best thinkers tbh. They can all make more money / do more interesting things in other walks of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Am I missing something? How do you get into this non elected, non-selected group? Didn't say that, did I? I obviously meant selected by their peers. I'm all for the ideal of democracy, but frankly, the average member of the public is a reactionary idiot. Why would I want them making decisions about macro-economics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 quite right, it might not get through, because of the softies and clueless liberals, but it should. No scrounging cunt should get more than 26 grand a year for doing nowt, even that is far too much, especially those who haven't even paid into it. How many million of those are there ? No wonder the country is going bust. The one thing that worries me is the kids'll inevitably suffer. But then again, it's their fucking parents fault anyway. And if they're prepared to have kids they can't support then they're probably already suffering. this is what the softies are already pointing out. I agree with the rest of your comments Alex. And a rising population isn't helping much. The natural population of countries like Britain and Germany would be at a standstill if it wasn't for immigrants. Natural population of a country generally reaches a plateau which is where Germany and Britain were in the 90's. Eventually the population of a fully developed nation will very slowly decline. Take Russia which has an immigration problem no where near we have in Western Europe, their population is set to decline 10m over 50 years. The population is only going up because of immigrants no other reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Am I missing something? How do you get into this non elected, non-selected group? Didn't say that, did I? I obviously meant selected by their peers. I'm all for the ideal of democracy, but frankly, the average member of the public is a reactionary idiot. Why would I want them making decisions about macro-economics? Would the greated religious minds be allowed in? Muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Am I missing something? How do you get into this non elected, non-selected group? Didn't say that, did I? I obviously meant selected by their peers. I'm all for the ideal of democracy, but frankly, the average member of the public is a reactionary idiot. Why would I want them making decisions about macro-economics? Tut Tut, your way of thinking wouldnt have got us Thatcher, universally acclaimed as one of the greatest of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Am I missing something? How do you get into this non elected, non-selected group? Didn't say that, did I? I obviously meant selected by their peers. I'm all for the ideal of democracy, but frankly, the average member of the public is a reactionary idiot. Why would I want them making decisions about macro-economics? Would the greated religious minds be allowed in? Muslims? If I had may way religion would have fuck all to do with anything, but I understand not all people are as enlightened as me. and Fuck Off CT, Thatcher would perpetuate the status quo, keep the money with the moneyed and fuck the rest of us. My utopia would have a little less milk stealing and electioneering and a little more quality education and biscuits for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) quite right, it might not get through, because of the softies and clueless liberals, but it should. No scrounging cunt should get more than 26 grand a year for doing nowt, even that is far too much, especially those who haven't even paid into it. How many million of those are there ? No wonder the country is going bust. This legislation would impact 67000 families if it goes though. Estimating an average of 2 claimants in each of those familes, that's 134,000 individuals. There ar 6,000,000 benefit claimants in this country. So 2% of benefit claimants are affected. Not quite the overhaul you're hoping for.. only 670,000 ? In that case, go ahead and let them fuck themselves. Then lower the cap further, because 26k is too high anyway [which I've already said]. Hopefully, many thousands of foreigners [and more] will decide not to bother getting onto those boats for Dover too. I've also said its more than the short term economics, but adjusting the mindset of the country in the long term. Edited January 24, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Not saying this swings things one way or the other in a democracy but youguv polled this at the weekend and found 79% of the population was in favour. 69% of Labour voters were in favour too. Up to 74% want to bring back hanging. http://ukpollingrepo...g/archives/3802 Fortunately the tyranny of majority is not our way. the Death penalty is quite justified for certain offences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now