|
Post by Moose on Oct 16, 2015 15:44:21 GMT
I can't see why people are so surprised, despite the fact that Cameron had said that these benefits would be unaffected by any future cuts. Whether or not you think that working families tax credits are a good idea - I don't know very much about them - ultimately the Tories have already broken one manifesto pledge here. I presume they're working on the assumption that most of those affected are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 16, 2015 17:01:24 GMT
There's talk of an impending (or hoped for) U turn but I think the media means a reversal of their policy of making cuts to tax credits. Are we surprised by the impending U turn? Not really.
Tax credits are a top-up for low paid workers. At the election, the Tories promised there would be no cuts in tax credits but they reneged on their promise.
Are we surprised the Tories have reneged on their promise at the election? Yes, because it is such a significant promise.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Oct 27, 2015 21:42:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by juju on Oct 27, 2015 23:16:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Oct 28, 2015 16:46:23 GMT
The only two people who think this is in any way a good idea are David Cameron and George Osbourne.
There is a fundamental principle that is at the heart of the Conservative party and that is that working people should be better off than those on benefits. This drives a coach and horses through that concept.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 28, 2015 19:16:42 GMT
I personally know a lot of people who are affected by it. These are people who work and work damn hard but simply don't earn very much money. My sister, for instance, spent fifteen years working various low paid but extremely vital jobs (she was a care assistant for a lot of that time and as far as I know a very good one, even though she earned little more than minimum wage for wiping people's bums and doing other things that I doubt Cameron would ever dream of doing). She actually already lost her tax credits last year when she went to university to try and train for a better job, so she works every spare hour she has in a supermarket now simply in order to live and feed her kids. You'd think that the government would be trying to encourage people like her, not make it impossible for them to educate themselves.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 28, 2015 19:47:09 GMT
I saw an interview with George Osborne yesterday where Robert Peston pointed out that he doesn't need a cut in tax credits to balance the budget by the end of this period of government and Osborne didn't deny the fact.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Oct 28, 2015 21:05:49 GMT
Did the Con-serveyouright-tives make an election pledge not to cut tax credits? In the actual manifesto? I can't find any mention of it. Or was it just a Cameron statement in an interview?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 28, 2015 22:55:11 GMT
It was an emphatic statement by Cameron in response to a question.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 28, 2015 23:33:08 GMT
Well Jesus, Joe, I would think that a television interview by the leader was enough for it to be a pledge?!
Okay, I am a low life scumbbag without a job .. I don't deny it I don't want to be like this the rest of my life but for now, I am. I live on a council estate. Some of my neighbours could be straight out of Benefits Street but most are not. Most are either retired people who worked for a long time or still working people who simply do not earn very much money. And these people are having tax credits taken away from them and that seriously sucks. I wonder how long IDS would survive in that sort of situation... half a breakfast, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Oct 28, 2015 23:50:53 GMT
Well Jesus, Joe, I would think that a television interview by the leader was enough for it to be a pledge?! No this is important ... if only Cameron said it then other Tories could claim they weren't informed, it was a misstatement, etc. Fortunately Boy George Osborne seems to be squirming enough. The reason I ask is because I saw a Times leader moaning about the House of Lords "damaging democracy" (in challenging the cuts). On the grounds that the Lords aren't elected whereas the Commons are, so the Commons represent the will of the people. (The Times is paywalled so I can't link to it.) But unless the Conservative manifesto contained an explicit commitment to cut the tax credits (ie the complete reverse of what Cameron promised verbally), they don't have anything remotely like a mandate. Winning a general election isn't a mandate to do whatever you like, only what you stood for election on. So it's the Tory-led Commons government who are in fact damaging democracy. Also I am judging you. As overreacting.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 29, 2015 18:20:09 GMT
I WAS wasn't I?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 29, 2015 18:20:53 GMT
Back to the point though, Cameron is the leader of the Tory party and you'd think that something he says is gospel Tory policy - otherwise you've got to wonder what sort of shambles their leadership is in.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Oct 29, 2015 19:54:00 GMT
Back to the point though, Cameron is the leader of the Tory party and you'd think that something he says is gospel Tory policy - otherwise you've got to wonder what sort of shambles their leadership is in. The sort that makes George Osborne and Boris Johnson very interested in challenging ...
|
|
|
Post by juju on Oct 29, 2015 20:56:46 GMT
I'm just hoping that people's memories are not so short they forget this come next election time.
There's a lot of people out there who voted Tory because they were fed the lie that the Conservatives were the party of 'hardworking' people. Now they've shown their true colours. Here's some of their 'achievements' so far...
1. Stripping tax credits from the hard working poor. 2. Selling off the NHS 3. Putting the most vulnerable in society at huge risk until many die or commit suicide 4. Bringing in uneccessary austerity measures causing an exponential rise in poverty and food banks 5. Cosying up to human rights abusers such as the Chinese and the Saudis, but threaten to abolish the Human Rights Act here. Oh and handing steel production to the Chinese. 6. Supporting the TTIP.
I could go on. I used to think Tory voters must be pathologically selfish, but I'm starting to think they must also be pathologically masochistic...
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Oct 29, 2015 22:30:07 GMT
I'm thinking that your voters need to rediscover their pitchforks and pitch torches....
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 30, 2015 19:17:43 GMT
I just think they've made an enormous mistake. My guess is that the Tories did pull in a lot of lower middle class/upper working class votes at the last election - people who were not convinced by Miliband (hell, I wasn't convinced by Miliband) and who felt that the Tories might have something to offer them. Those people now feel utterly betrayed. Yeah, some toffs are always gonna vote Tory as a matter of course but they are outnumbered. The Tories need the support of the ordinary working person and they've lost an awful lot of it now.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Oct 31, 2015 17:57:49 GMT
They've lost support, but can apparently just carry on doing what they want for several more years!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 31, 2015 18:48:38 GMT
Mindless voters will vote for them again. It happens in America - that voters vote for a party that doesn't act in their interest - and I dare say it happens in every country.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Oct 31, 2015 20:19:01 GMT
Yes, for many people, political party affiliation is something they inherit from their parents and, especially in places where there are only two feasible choices, are raised with the knowledge that the other side *are* the bad guys. Even though they might well actually side closer with some other party if they only looked into the issues rather than assuming the party their ancestors chose is still on the path that is best for them.
The interesting thing is how the "conservatives" in so many places are not really that; they are implementing changes to the way things have been for decades. They should be renamed to reflect who they really represent. That might be "The Wealthies" or "The Companies" or - bizarrely - "The Bible-Belters".
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 31, 2015 23:59:08 GMT
Yes, for many people, political party affiliation is something they inherit from their parents and, especially in places where there are only two feasible choices, are raised with the knowledge that the other side *are* the bad guys. Even though they might well actually side closer with some other party if they only looked into the issues rather than assuming the party their ancestors chose is still on the path that is best for them. That's true. And there is also another factor. I read somewhere that the conservative mind favours structure and order whilst the liberal mind favours justice and fairness. If you grow up in a conservative household, you learn to value structure and order, which makes you more likely to want to vote conservative.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Nov 1, 2015 0:07:34 GMT
The one good thing about conservatives in this country is that they are not religiously motivated. Religion is never used as a persuasive factor in politics here.
Also, in the UK you don't have to be registered as a supporter so a lot of people tend to 'float' until the very last minute. That can make predicting the result extremely difficult, which is what happened last general election. Nobody predicted a Conservative landslide and actually no one owned up to voting conservative - yet vote they did, in droves. Hopefully though, those 'shy Tories' will think twice next time - surely no one can be that stupid again?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Nov 1, 2015 12:56:01 GMT
A reporter recently pointed out, I think on BBC Newsnight, that the Conservatives made all sorts of promises before the election which they didn't expect to keep, or particularly want to keep because they didn't think they'd win the election outright and would have to bargain with the Liberal Democrats. In that sense, winning was a bit of an embarrassment for them. (But please don't think that means I feel sorry for them.)
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Nov 2, 2015 16:01:31 GMT
Yeah it's easy to promise £12 billion savings in welfare costs when you don't expect to have to deliver on that promise. Then they won and the only way to begin to deliver was by making savage cuts on tax credits - note that the tax credits cut was 'only' going to save £4.4 billion.
Now it looks as though those cuts will either not be made or will be compensated somehow - so we've still no idea where the full impact of the £12 billion cuts will land or whether it will just be an actual real manifesto promise that will be broken.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Nov 2, 2015 19:18:08 GMT
I am no economist but surely there are better places 12 billion could be saved. Silly wars, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Nov 2, 2015 19:36:59 GMT
I'd bet that subsidies to rich people and huge corporations could probably be a source of major savings.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Nov 2, 2015 21:19:53 GMT
Oh they could easily save billions by not renewing trident. But if we're talking about not breaking manifesto promises then they can't do that either.
Then there's the vanity project of high speed rail 2. I've not read the manifesto and I don't know whether or not that was in there - I know the tories aren't in favour of cancelling it though.
Yes, cutting back on the warmongering would save some cash - I'm pretty sure the manifesto wouldn't have contained promises to help with token bombing support in whatever countries the USA decides to bomb over the next few years.
If they can't cut back on spending and they want to eliminate the deficit, then they just have to increase taxes. I know they promised they weren't intending to increase VAT or income tax, but they could easily come up with some form of words for new taxes that would effectively increase either. And there are all the opportunities for new 'stealth taxes' - like we all pay an extra tax now on insurance for our houses, vehicles and so on.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Nov 2, 2015 22:32:22 GMT
Didn't Labour press them to explain how they were going to save £12 billion but they refused?
|
|