I see Iain Duncan Smith has successfully ended child poverty in the UK within a month of the new government coming into office

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33347511 Seems the Tories now want to end sickness benefit.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33347511 Seems the Tories now want to end sickness benefit.

The problem with welfare is that it creates a class of people that are dependent on the state. So, essentially it's the states way of bribing voters.
When the welfare state was set up, only people over the age of 70 were given a weekly payment. This made the welfare system very cheap, because the life expectancy in Britain at the time was 48.
However, although cutting benefits will decrease government spending it doesn't address the real issue of private debt (mortgage payments, credit cards, student loans, bank loans etc). If the public is paying down debt it's inevitable sovereign debt will increase as the government tries to circulate the money into the economy that isn't being circulated as the public is saving in order to pay their debt.

We're the most indebted nation in the developed world, our total debt is 900% of GDP, and most of that is private debt-not government debt. Debts that can't be repaid, won't be repaid, and either we have to default and go bankrupt, or a significant proportion of the debt will have to be written off.
IMO, the initial bailout that was given to the banks, should have gone to the public in order to pay down their own debt, thus giving the money to the banks in the form of debt repayments, and giving the public more disposable income, to save, or spend within the economy.
Unfortunately, because of the nature of our political system, no Politian is willing to stand up to the Ponzi scheme running-oligarchs in the financial sector. They're just happy to keep the bubble inflated long enough so the 5hit doesn't hit the fan while they're in office.

Edit:

Just to add, the UK's current (trade account) is also far more concerning than is portrayed by the government and the media. Our economy will never be able to recover if we don't start producing more than we consume, there needs to be a reindustrialisation of Britain.

I'd be thoroughly embarassed, as a government, to talk about more welfare cuts when the current situation has already led to a neccessity for foodbanks.

Shame on them.

They're more interested in getting dividends for shareholders, than sorting out the root cause of any social problems.

rlDon't you even dare to criticise government policies, otherwise we'll withold fundingrl

The goal is the Thirdworldisation of the Britain with employees begging for jobs offering similar terms and conditions as you'd find in one of Russell Brand's sweatshops.

I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic. Sheeple meekly sitting by watching rights and benefits their forefathers literally gave their blood to win trickle away - forever lost. Do people seriously believe they'll see them return once we fight our way out of debt? But then if you're dumb enough to think debt is some kind of statistical irregularity in markets rather than an economic weapon there's no point in further discussion.

Until people stop watching TV, think for themselves and take forceful action they deserve everything they get.

There was a necessity for foodbanks way before the nasty, nasty Tories got into power. Still, the simple solution would be to ban them completely then we'll go back to the halycon days of the early 2000's when everyone had enough money to spend on food, booze and ciggies.
Which other charities would you also like to see banned? Macmillan, perhaps.

Why not simply type WAAAAAAHHHHH....Tories, it'll save time.

People will stop watching TV when this Thirdworldisation eventually happens. Carry on taking the pills.

What is your opinion of foodbanks ?

Are they a necessary charitable effort in emergency situations, or do you believe that they are all politically motivated hence the reason why they have multiplied several fold under the current incumbents ?

Quote: BobbyD "There was a necessity for foodbanks way before the nasty, nasty Tories got into power. Still, the simple solution would be to ban them completely then we'll go back to the halycon days of the early 2000's when everyone had enough money to spend on food, booze and ciggies. Which other charities would you also like to see banned? Macmillan, perhaps. Why not simply type WAAAAAAHHHHH....Tories, it'll save time.'" You are totally correct, people did use foodbanks before the Tories, all 25, 899 of them. What you can't seem to grasp is the number of people who find it necessary to use them SINCE the Coalition/Tories have been in power, 1, 084, 604 of them. Any idea why there has been such a big jump in the space of 6 years? And please don't say if its there it will be used, you have to be referred to use a foodbank and show proof of income etc. www.trusselltrust.org/stats

Quote: BobbyD "There was a necessity for foodbanks way before the nasty, nasty Tories got into power. Still, the simple solution would be to ban them completely then we'll go back to the halycon days of the early 2000's when everyone had enough money to spend on food, booze and ciggies. Which other charities would you also like to see banned? Macmillan, perhaps. Why not simply type WAAAAAAHHHHH....Tories, it'll save time.'" You are totally correct, people did use foodbanks before the Tories, all 25, 899 of them. What you can't seem to grasp is the number of people who find it necessary to use them SINCE the Coalition/Tories have been in power, 1, 084, 604 of them. Any idea why there has been such a big jump in the space of 6 years? And please don't say if its there it will be used, you have to be referred to use a foodbank and show proof of income etc. www.trusselltrust.org/stats

I have no problem with them whatsoever. It'd be great if they weren't needed, but then it'd be great if no charities were needed. Perhaps they should get a teddy bear mascot with an eye patch and call it Pudsey, then they may be acceptable.

Jesus H. Christ! When will people stop thinking the entirety of political thought is represented by this completely bogus "Left" - "Right", "Labour", "Tory" false dichotomy? You'd think after all we've witnessed over the past thirty years with Labour, the Tories and now the Lib-Dems not just ruthlessly carving up the welfare state, the education system, the NHS etc. but also helping to facilitate the biggest tax-haven for corporate wealth (both in the UK and spread across a network of British dominions in the Caribbean as well as the Channel Islands) in existence, the penny would finally drop.

As long as people continue to believe that the limits of their political responsibilities are represented marking an occasional "X" on some polling ballot - the winner of which represents neither "Conservatism" as it was once defined nor "Labour" but instead is really an abstract, ideologically flexible subset of a SINGLE PARTY in Parliament - their impoverishment will carry on unabated.

I mean, seriously - Cameron (I won't say the "Tories" because such policy reforms are radically un-Conservative) has now "leaked" the idea of charging for visits to the doctor's surgery. Are people so DUMB that they think such charges will remain fixed for eternity - rather than being ratcheted up along the lines of prescription charges so that in essence the NHS is no longer free?

And anyone who seriously believes New New Labour is going to come riding in on a white horse to put right everything those Nasty Tories have tampered with in four years needs his head examining.

Those could have been my very thoughts, regular readers may recall the phrase "football supporter politics", well its the funneling of thoughts into "left" and "right" that simply maintains the system where any party in government lines its members pockets for the future regardless of rhetoric or pretend political theories - there is no "left" or "right" in the current pair of parties who are the only ones likely to ever hold power and you have to go back forty years to understand what "left" and "right" really means.