Jeremy Corbyn

SwingsitlikeHogan said:
You may wish to add to your list of those attending foodbanks - those who have been sanctioned - for whatever reason - and have no money to feed themselves or their family. Or are they the 'bottom feeders' you refer to?
Click to expand...

Why are they sanctioned? If I failed to turn up for work or didn't bother filling in expense sheets then I would be sanctioned by my company and have no money; I guess that would be my own fault though!
 
SocketRocket said:
Why are they sanctioned? If I failed to turn up for work or didn't bother filling in expense sheets then I would be sanctioned by my company and have no money; I guess that would be my own fault though!
Click to expand...

Yes - that's right - not getting your expenses paid to you as quickly as you'd like is just the same as being sanctioned. Of course it is. Unfortunately too many make such disingenuous comparisons to justify their support of the policy - a policy which is actually pretty damn odious.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-were-never-real-to-the-tories-10461688.html

The UK a mostly caring, compassionate and tolerant society? Forget it - that went years ago - and was going through the Blair years of government. The government you get reflects the feelings of the people who put it in power. And that is why Corbyn is sounding attractive to many Labour voters - his thoughts reflect much closer what might form the basis of such a society. So call me naive if you wish, but it is a route that some of us find some hope in. The current path is one of misery and hopelessness for many.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Yes - that's right - not getting your expenses paid to you as quickly as you'd like is just the same as being sanctioned. Of course it is. Unfortunately too many make such disingenuous comparisons to justify their support of the policy - a policy which is actually pretty damn odious.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-were-never-real-to-the-tories-10461688.html

The UK a mostly caring, compassionate and tolerant society? Forget it - that went years ago - and was going through the Blair years of government. The government you get reflects the feelings of the people who put it in power. And that is why Corbyn is sounding attractive to many Labour voters - his thoughts reflect much closer what might form the basis of such a society. So call me naive if you wish, but it is a route that some of us find some hope in. The current path is one of misery and hopelessness for many.
Click to expand...

I definitely wouldn't say you're naive, far from it. And I would hope that many would like to see the UK aspire to such a caring, giving society. But is it affordable? If it is, it gets my vote, but if it isn't it has to be a no.

Corbyn is selling a vision/policies without any funding details, as are all the candidates. I find his more fanciful than the others, plus he's way too far left for my taste.
 
What Labour need to do is get the 'can't be asked' to be asked...
Of the current quartet Corbyn is the most likely to achieve this...
All the others are classic spin doctor creations...
 
Hobbit said:
I definitely wouldn't say you're naive, far from it. And I would hope that many would like to see the UK aspire to such a caring, giving society. But is it affordable? If it is, it gets my vote, but if it isn't it has to be a no.

Corbyn is selling a vision/policies without any funding details, as are all the candidates. I find his more fanciful than the others, plus he's way too far left for my taste.
Click to expand...

The country can afford what the government chooses...the current austerity programme and it's timescales have been determined by the government for their own political means - as is much of what the government chooses to do or not do.

So such as the pledge on capping Social Care costs - let's forget that promise whilst everyone is distracted by everything else going on - and instead delay it until early 2020 - when we'll also find tax cuts for the better off - all good election winning stuff.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Yes - that's right - not getting your expenses paid to you as quickly as you'd like is just the same as being sanctioned. Of course it is. Unfortunately too many make such disingenuous comparisons to justify their support of the policy - a policy which is actually pretty damn odious.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-were-never-real-to-the-tories-10461688.html

The UK a mostly caring, compassionate and tolerant society? Forget it - that went years ago - and was going through the Blair years of government. The government you get reflects the feelings of the people who put it in power. And that is why Corbyn is sounding attractive to many Labour voters - his thoughts reflect much closer what might form the basis of such a society. So call me naive if you wish, but it is a route that some of us find some hope in. The current path is one of misery and hopelessness for many.
Click to expand...

Either I didn't put my point over clearly enough for you or you just failed to get it!

What I was trying to say was that people are sanctioned for a reason, normally they don't turn up for meetings at the job centre or job interviews. My parallel was suggesting that if I did the same I would probably end up with the sack and thereby have no money. So would you consider this to be my own fault or the fault of my nasty employer?
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
The country can afford what the government chooses...the current austerity programme and it's timescales have been determined by the government for their own political means - as is much of what the government chooses to do or not do.

So such as the pledge on capping Social Care costs - let's forget that promise whilst everyone is distracted by everything else going on - and instead delay it until early 2020 - when we'll also find tax cuts for the better off - all good election winning stuff.
Click to expand...

I find you a bit of an enigma! You make a lot of comments on how nasty the Government are regarding welfare but don't explain how an alternative would work or how it would be paid for. Are you suggesting we should have unlimited welfare on demand, without justifying why it's paid and if that's not given then we are an uncaring and uncompassionate society?
 
How's about deciding that you don't help the poor by making them poorer or by beating them with a stick. How about extending period to clear the deficit - maybe don't even aim to clear it - after all it wasn't the poor or users of public services who created the deficit in the first place (and neither was it the last Labour government).How about having budgets that hit the wealthier amongst us rather than just the poor; so dump the shibboleth and forget tax cuts for the better of planned for prior to the next election. After all - we are all in it together - apparently.
 
I tried to volunteer to help at my local food bank only to be politely told that they had more than enough volunteers already.
I would bet a few pounds that none of those volunteers voted Conservative.
 
Beezerk said:
Gets my vote for the "Sweeping Statement of 2015" award.
Click to expand...
Whilst it may be a sweeping statement, and not one I would particularly agree with. It does echo my own experience of attempting to volunteer at a foodbank, and being told that they didn't need any more volunteers at the moment. Quite a pleasing situation.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
How's about deciding that you don't help the poor by making them poorer or by beating them with a stick. How about extending period to clear the deficit - maybe don't even aim to clear it - after all it wasn't the poor or users of public services who created the deficit in the first place (and neither was it the last Labour government).How about having budgets that hit the wealthier amongst us rather than just the poor; so dump the shibboleth and forget tax cuts for the better of planned for prior to the next election. After all - we are all in it together - apparently.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the last Labour govt? No they weren't to blame for the crash, but were they culpable of its effect on the UK. Who was the Chancellor that presided over much of the deregulation of the banks, along similar lines as those in the US, that exposed the UK to greater risk if there was a meltdown? The meltdown started in the US but it was the last Labour govt that left us exposed to the madness in the US. Which chancellor sold our best buffer at knockdown prices, selling our gold reserve, just so they could carry on spending extravagantly?

Which govt 'developed' the welfare state to the extent that it was possible to get £25k's worth of benefits whilst sitting on your backside? And which govt had 13yrs to develop social housing, and to NOT privatise the NHS by the back door?

Yes the Tories are going too far, but I'd vote for them again before I'd risk the UK becoming the second Greece under a Corbyn led Labour. Find me a funded middle ground and I'll vote for it. Offer me a left wing Corbyn Labour and I won't.

I agree with some of things you'd like to see, e.g. no tax cuts for the extremely well off. And I'd even vote for some tax rises. But I wouldn't vote for them if it meant the looney left were managing the spending of those taxes.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
How's about deciding that you don't help the poor by making them poorer or by beating them with a stick. How about extending period to clear the deficit - maybe don't even aim to clear it - after all it wasn't the poor or users of public services who created the deficit in the first place (and neither was it the last Labour government).How about having budgets that hit the wealthier amongst us rather than just the poor; so dump the shibboleth and forget tax cuts for the better of planned for prior to the next election. After all - we are all in it together - apparently.
Click to expand...

'Shibboleth' Now thats a fancy word and one that has a multiple of meanings and as such only used by someone who has decided to muddy the water rather than keep it clear and to the point.

Here you go again dodging the points made in reply and going off on a tangent to try and enforce a rather poor argument. You do seem to have a rather blur and polarised view of politics and especially on welfare and it's limits.

'Shibboleth' Good try!
 
Hobbit said:
Which govt 'developed' the welfare state to the extent that it was possible to get £25k's worth of benefits whilst sitting on your backside?
Click to expand...

Much talk of these £25k figures.....here's some numbers.

I completed a "benefits calculator" (www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator) assuming a married couple aged 36/35 with 3 children aged 1, 4, 8 with no income renting from a private landlord in London. I used London because it always seems to me that these high benefit numbers seem worse there due to higher rents etc.

Estimate (per week):
Tax Credits - £170.96
JSA - £114.85
Council Tax - £13.82
Housing Benefit - £272.50
Child Benefit - £48.10
Total - £620.33

Sounds pretty good so far for sitting on my arse. Over £32k for doing nothing....bring it on. Looking a little closer though and the first thing you see is that over £14k of that doesn't go to me at all, it goes to my landlord.....so let's look a little closer.

The Housing Benefit is the highest possible and is based on geographical area....the actual rent may be more....and often is.
The new benefit cap kicks in and the above is limited to £513.82 per week.

So, taking the HB out of it I would have £347.83 to actually live on but with the cap this is nowadays reduced to £241.42 as obviously the rent still needs to be paid.

Now, that is still an amount most people could live on....Gas, Electric (often metered and costing over the odds), Food, Clothes. Things would certainly be tight but I think I could just about manage. Mind you......
Knock off the Sky TV that they "all" have @£20pw
The fags that "all" benefit claimants seem to smoke a packet a day@ say £140
A couple of nights out, as we all know poor people need a social life too.... say £30 x 2 = £60
Hmmmm, how would that work then? Just possibly a perception rather than a reality?

Of course there are people who abuse the system, there are at all levels (tax evasion for example) but for the massive majority of those on benefits the above is the reality. The single biggest reasons for these seemingly massive benefits amounts are the lack of reasonably priced social housing and more importantly the lack of legislation to stop greedy landlords milking the system which by far outweighs any amount you want to put on the so called scroungers. You convert a house into 3 flats each with a family like the imaginary one above.....just do the math.....the phrase "a licence to print money" comes to mind and that's where the real benefit cheats are making the killing.

Incidently, the calculator goes on to show how much better off I would be in work. Even at minimum wage and 40 hours I'd be £209 a week better off overall but taking the rent out of it I'd have more than twice the about of money coming in. If I'm capable of work why on earth would I choose the "life on benefits"?
 
Fyldewhite said:
Much talk of these £25k figures.....here's some numbers.

I completed a "benefits calculator" (www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator) assuming a married couple aged 36/35 with 3 children aged 1, 4, 8 with no income renting from a private landlord in London. I used London because it always seems to me that these high benefit numbers seem worse there due to higher rents etc.

Estimate (per week):
Tax Credits - £170.96
JSA - £114.85
Council Tax - £13.82
Housing Benefit - £272.50
Child Benefit - £48.10
Total - £620.33

Sounds pretty good so far for sitting on my arse. Over £32k for doing nothing....bring it on. Looking a little closer though and the first thing you see is that over £14k of that doesn't go to me at all, it goes to my landlord.....so let's look a little closer.

The Housing Benefit is the highest possible and is based on geographical area....the actual rent may be more....and often is.
The new benefit cap kicks in and the above is limited to £513.82 per week.

So, taking the HB out of it I would have £347.83 to actually live on but with the cap this is nowadays reduced to £241.42 as obviously the rent still needs to be paid.

Now, that is still an amount most people could live on....Gas, Electric (often metered and costing over the odds), Food, Clothes. Things would certainly be tight but I think I could just about manage. Mind you......
Knock off the Sky TV that they "all" have @£20pw
The fags that "all" benefit claimants seem to smoke a packet a day@ say £140
A couple of nights out, as we all know poor people need a social life too.... say £30 x 2 = £60
Hmmmm, how would that work then? Just possibly a perception rather than a reality?

Of course there are people who abuse the system, there are at all levels (tax evasion for example) but for the massive majority of those on benefits the above is the reality. The single biggest reasons for these seemingly massive benefits amounts are the lack of reasonably priced social housing and more importantly the lack of legislation to stop greedy landlords milking the system which by far outweighs any amount you want to put on the so called scroungers. You convert a house into 3 flats each with a family like the imaginary one above.....just do the math.....the phrase "a licence to print money" comes to mind and that's where the real benefit cheats are making the killing.

Incidently, the calculator goes on to show how much better off I would be in work. Even at minimum wage and 40 hours I'd be £209 a week better off overall but taking the rent out of it I'd have more than twice the about of money coming in. If I'm capable of work why on earth would I choose the "life on benefits"?
Click to expand...

Fine post there sir.
 
Fyldewhite said:
Much talk of these £25k figures.....here's some numbers.

I completed a "benefits calculator" (www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator) assuming a married couple aged 36/35 with 3 children aged 1, 4, 8 with no income renting from a private landlord in London. I used London because it always seems to me that these high benefit numbers seem worse there due to higher rents etc.

Estimate (per week):
Tax Credits - £170.96
JSA - £114.85
Council Tax - £13.82
Housing Benefit - £272.50
Child Benefit - £48.10
Total - £620.33

Sounds pretty good so far for sitting on my arse. Over £32k for doing nothing....bring it on. Looking a little closer though and the first thing you see is that over £14k of that doesn't go to me at all, it goes to my landlord.....so let's look a little closer.

The Housing Benefit is the highest possible and is based on geographical area....the actual rent may be more....and often is.
The new benefit cap kicks in and the above is limited to £513.82 per week.

So, taking the HB out of it I would have £347.83 to actually live on but with the cap this is nowadays reduced to £241.42 as obviously the rent still needs to be paid.

Now, that is still an amount most people could live on....Gas, Electric (often metered and costing over the odds), Food, Clothes. Things would certainly be tight but I think I could just about manage. Mind you......
Knock off the Sky TV that they "all" have @£20pw
The fags that "all" benefit claimants seem to smoke a packet a day@ say £140
A couple of nights out, as we all know poor people need a social life too.... say £30 x 2 = £60
Hmmmm, how would that work then? Just possibly a perception rather than a reality?

Of course there are people who abuse the system, there are at all levels (tax evasion for example) but for the massive majority of those on benefits the above is the reality. The single biggest reasons for these seemingly massive benefits amounts are the lack of reasonably priced social housing and more importantly the lack of legislation to stop greedy landlords milking the system which by far outweighs any amount you want to put on the so called scroungers. You convert a house into 3 flats each with a family like the imaginary one above.....just do the math.....the phrase "a licence to print money" comes to mind and that's where the real benefit cheats are making the killing.

Incidently, the calculator goes on to show how much better off I would be in work. Even at minimum wage and 40 hours I'd be £209 a week better off overall but taking the rent out of it I'd have more than twice the about of money coming in. If I'm capable of work why on earth would I choose the "life on benefits"?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head I cant see how you would be better off on minimum wage which would be around 13K PA whilst losing a number of your benefits. Also take into account that to earn a similar amount you would be paying income tax and National Insurance so would need to earn much more to reach that net pay.

Regarding your final point, you would prefer it if you were lazy and/or unemployable.
 
Fyldewhite said:
Much talk of these £25k figures.....here's some numbers.

Estimate (per week):
Tax Credits - £170.96
JSA - £114.85
Council Tax - £13.82
Housing Benefit - £272.50
Child Benefit - £48.10
Total - £620.33

Sounds pretty good so far for sitting on my arse. Over £32k for doing nothing....bring it on. Looking a little closer though and the first thing you see is that over £14k of that doesn't go to me at all, it goes to my landlord.....so let's look a little closer.

The Housing Benefit is the highest possible and is based on geographical area....the actual rent may be more....and often is.
The new benefit cap kicks in and the above is limited to £513.82 per week.

So, taking the HB out of it I would have £347.83 to actually live on but with the cap this is nowadays reduced to £241.42 as obviously the rent still needs to be paid.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your post but why would you take housing benefit out of the equation? It is still money that is being paid to them (albeit not actually going to them directly). I rent from a private landlord but that doesn't affect the amount of money that comes to me, it just affects how the money I earn is spent.
 
ColchesterFC said:
I agree with much of your post but why would you take housing benefit out of the equation? It is still money that is being paid to them (albeit not actually going to them directly). I rent from a private landlord but that doesn't affect the amount of money that comes to me, it just affects how the money I earn is spent.
Click to expand...

Take your point. But it's not negotiable, it's not really a measure of how well off you are, your disposable income after essentials is a better reflection. The press, and many on here try to paint a picture of relative affluence by quoting the high figures when in reality this simply isn't true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crazyface
Train Tickets
Replies
1
Views
158
Lord Tyrion
Lord Tyrion
Crazyface
Mobile Phones HELP !!!!!!!
Replies
14
Views
649
Robster59
Robster59
Orikoru
AYRSHIRE THIS FRIDAY?
Replies
9
Views
447
Orikoru
Orikoru
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
Mudball
Is 90k pay middle class
7 8 9
Replies
162
Views
10K
harpo_72
harpo_72
Top