The election 2015

Cant work out osbourne. I am beginning to think he really does have a tin ear allied to Cameron's occasional lazy thinking.

The pros and cons of the tax credits are in the detail but I simply cannot be enthused about a policy taking back from the hard working low paid. if it is to be countered by other incentives such as the higher minimum wage than that should be in place first and seen to be workable.

With the absolute confidence that a terrorists supporting Marxist opposition will not get elected then it's a lazy free reign. Having said that this is playing into boriss hands. He's taken up against the cuts of course and it may be a stance. on the other hand is suspect he's smart enough and has enough empathy to know this simply feels wrong. I sense that about him

having said that the lords should certainly not have voted against. Simply scrap the chamber. Waste of time unelected and **** off

on benefits why does child benefit exist universally? I would slash that right down or get rid altogether. We have a growing population so what's the point?
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Cant work out osbourne. I am beginning to think he really does have a tin ear allied to Cameron's occasional lazy thinking.

The pros and cons of the tax credits are in the detail but I simply cannot be enthused about a policy taking back from the hard working low paid. if it is to be countered by other incentives such as the higher minimum wage than that should be in place first and seen to be workable.

With the absolute confidence that a terrorists supporting Marxist opposition will not get elected then it's a lazy free reign. Having said that this is playing into boriss hands. He's taken up against the cuts of course and it may be a stance. on the other hand is suspect he's smart enough and has enough empathy to know this simply feels wrong. I sense that about him

having said that the lords should certainly not have voted against. Simply scrap the chamber. Waste of time unelected and **** off

on benefits why does child benefit exist universally? I would slash that right down or get rid altogether. We have a growing population so what's the point?
Click to expand...

the reason we need tax credits supports my previous argument that working people are not better off than they were years ago though Clive doesn't it? If everyone is so much better off..why are we needing to bolster up people's wages at all?

the house of lords thing is a red herring ..if osbourne had made it a finance bill..then there is nothing the Lords could have done...so he has messed up by letting it be allowed to go to the Lords. the fact is he tried to sneak this in and has paid for it. On saying that..the government don't have to listen to them anyway do they?

clearly though the real issue is..Cameron misled the electorate when asked if he was going to cut tax credits pre the election...if he had laid out these cuts before the election then the Tories would not have got a majority..so the fact he is PM is based on misleading the public

the whole episode of taking from the poorest whilst giving to the richest is again clearly shown what the tories are about to anyone who is young enough never to have lived through their reign before...they get in by people being ignorant of their leanings..the lower paid ummers and arrers let them in through ignorance...at least this time they have shown their colours early doors

you say Labour are extreme..this lot are as well
 
"to steal from the rich is criminal, to steal from the poor is capitalism"
From the text of a TV advert for a computer game 'Assasins' Creed'........I thought it must have been a quote from a famous Communist but when googled I only got links to the computer game.

Are our children being brainwashed?
 
Colin. A quote like that would only be swallowed by backwards 12 year olds, so yes, they have pitched their market correctly of courseEc. The minimum wage is going up substantially. So the idea is that we don't need to boost wages. Is that extreme? I don't think so. Also why are you assuming that "working people" are all earning about 10k a year. They are not. The vast majority are miles better off than before.
 
clivex said:
Colin. A quote like that would only be swallowed by backwards 12 year olds, so yes, they have pitched their market correctly of courseEc. The minimum wage is going up substantially. So the idea is that we don't need to boost wages. Is that extreme? I don't think so. Also why are you assuming that "working people" are all earning about 10k a year. They are not. The vast majority are miles better off than before.
Click to expand...

Clive..you don't need to give me a lesson in the aims of it. YOu might like to answer though my question..why would a country where people are better off than they were years ago need state handouts when they go to work..didn't get tax credits in the 60s & 70's..simple answer is..because they were better off then..so all those pages you argued the opposite are wiped out in the simple fact we need to give workers top up to just survive these days

what makes me laugh about you "educating" me is that a number of pages back i said that people could not live off miminum wage..and you said that if employers had to raise it..then it would just mean more unemployment. I suggested then that companies should be paying more but that was naive..but now because osbourne has come up with it..its all obvious and i must be a thicko not to understand it.

no Clive..my ideal would be that people have enough wages to be able to live..like they used to when in the main most households had one earner. that is also what osbourne say he wants..higher wage..lower state...but i don't believe him..what he actually wants is to take away the state money first..leave folk in a mess from April next year..in the vain hope that his business mates will pay them a living wage in future..which will apparently make up the the money lost in tax credit. We know it doesn't as its been calculated that on average..even with child care given and living wage and all other factors built in...the average would be that families would be 1300 a year worse off.

you want the argument all ways don't you?..on the one hand..people have never been so well off in your opinion..even though workers need state top ups..on the other hand you are now saying businesses should pay more wages..which a while ago you said wasn't possible.

what i think would have happened if osbourne had had his way is this..next april cuts come in...after that companies say if they have to pay living wage they will have to lay people off..living wage not adheered to...osbourne by that time wouldn't give a fig as tax credit cuts in place..job done

if the number of people made worse off is insignificant..as you mention last off there...then why didn't Cameron state these aims before the election..there are clearly significant numbers of people affected by this as it would have lost him the election..17% of working families..thats a lot of people affected

a state handout when working country..isn't one that is better off than 40 years ago Clive..its a country where business make large profits for the few whilst throwing a bit of corn down for the serfs

all this..oh the living wage will offset the drop in state help..is a fake pie in the sky promise imo

..just answer some points please instead of trying to teach me what i already know
 
Last edited:
The idea that there was no poverty or low wages in the sixties and seventies is simply laughable. You have this weird rose tinted view of those decades which is an absolute nonsense

higher minimum wage will potentially lead to less jobs but the saving from not subsidising the likes of Mike Ashley to pay his staff rock bottom will clearly boost th economy by reducing the deficit too and thus create more jobs created
 
I understand that the Chancellor reckons that we're all ok now because petrol is cheaper than it was.
 
clivex said:
The idea that there was no poverty or low wages in the sixties and seventies is simply laughable. You have this weird rose tinted view of those decades which is an absolute nonsense

higher minimum wage will potentially lead to less jobs but the saving from not subsidising the likes of Mike Ashley to pay his staff rock bottom will clearly boost th economy by reducing the deficit too and thus create more jobs created
Click to expand...

i haven't said there was no poverty in the 60's Clive..but there clearly wasn't enough of a problem to create state hand outs to WORKING people..and thats what proves people are not better off now...you just won't admit that state topped up wages prove people are worse off now..when its f00kin obvious isn't it?

In the 60's..you got a job..you got paid and lived reasonably well off it...thats a country where people are doing ok..nowadays you get a job..and need it topping up..and thats just just to survive

what you are also forgetting..are those that are just above the level that get any state help..aren't well off either..and there will be few million in that region as well who go to work and pay all their money out..just to survive...but because they are just above..don't get a top up from state..they aren't well off as you suggest..they can't be well off if they are near the level where they just fail a state handout. To be at that just above level where you just fail a state benefit..isn't being well off is it?

so there are millions of people who aren't well off as clearly demonstrated by the state itself paying the money out in the first place
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but that again is abolsute tripe. A job in the sixties did not guarantee high standard of living. That's simply wrong.

Frankly you you also have to accept that the days when car workers were paid more than doctors and dustbin men more than teachers are gone for good too. And rightly so. There is no way that nonsense could continue and the country knew it and kicked out that stupidity in 1979

and you are going round in circles. Osbourne is breaking the cycle of tax credits to ensure higher minimum wage
 
its not tripe Clive..and the fact you don't answer questions proves it

you are also very naive if you think osbourne is being genuine here .i'm all for the state dropping the credits..but i would do it in a genuine way..a way that proved i meant it rather than misleading people

my way..would be..drop the credits on the same day you replace them with a wage increase and the promised child care that replaces it.....thats what a genuine offer is..the offer osbourne is making is a deception based on pie in the sky future

what osbourne is doing is basically saying to someone..oh next april..i'm halving your pay..but don't worry..over the next 4 years you'll get that back a bit at a time..maybe or maybe not

thats not a genuine offer..thats not how anyone would do business is it Clive?

isn't it also time he looked at cutting the scandalous housing benefits..what is it 30 billion?...paid to the landlords..who are laughing at their tenants and the country with the money they are raking in..they are people who should be made to reduce their rents by law..as its basically stealing from the state what they get away with..this is the real scandal benefit
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about?

the minimum wage increase has been set out in detail. It's not pie in the sky

and no way is anyone's pay "being halved" . Isn't the most anyone is going to lose £1300 for now? So these low earners are on £2600 a year are they?

Coming out with complete garbage like that doesn't make it worthwhile debating
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
What are you talking about?

the minimum wage increase has been set out in detail. It's not pie in the sky

and no way is anyone's pay "being halved" . Isn't the most anyone is going to lose £1300 for now? So these low earners are on £2600 a year are they?

Coming out with complete garbage like that doesn't make it worthwhile debating
Click to expand...

i said halved as an example to illustrate the point Clive..a bird in the hand etc

you don't debate though..you pass an opinion..and thats it..so i just do the same

its clear to me that you must be very gullible to be conned by osbourne's ploy..and if offered the same deal he is putting out pretty daft to take it...the point i was making Clive is that if someone came to you and said..ok i'm going to take a slice of your wages from next week..but over a 4 year period i'll make it up to you..although you will still be out of pocket even after 4 years and probably forever..you would be quite happy to take that deal?

to try and stick up for this is just blind party fawning Clive..its a pile of crap...it should be state benefit removed..alternative replacement given same day..anyone that didn't expect that is just a fool or quite happy to squeeze the poor for the debt burdened on us by the gambling bankers.

in a society where when things are going great..those that are better off keep the gains to themselves..but those same people are arseholes if when things are not going great expect those lesser off to then repay THEIR losses ..its vile..its typical of greedy bullies though.

its not long ago we saw at the tory fundraising debacle the ugliness of greed and selfishness..people taking part in an auction and bidding 200k for useless items to put money in the tory coffers...laughing about people on benefits..vile creatures who expect the poor to bail the country out whilst they carry on as normal..complete spineless critters imo.
 
Last edited:
having a break Clive..what about this betting on next leader..osbourne a massive lay at these odds from paddy power

George Osborne 6/5, Boris Johnson 7/2, Theresa May 7/1 and Sajid Javid 8/1.


 
Osborne at odds-against is surely a tap-in?

The Tories do not have another credible candidate to run against him.

People may enjoy the calamitous bufoon act that is Boris Johnson, but they don't particularly want him representing the country at anything more important than barreling into 8yo Japanese kids for a laugh. He is much more effective in his Court Jester role, whereas he is a liability as a Leader.

Osborne dwarfs every other Tory candidate in stature, experience, political-savvy, and dare-I-say intellect. He has the party apparatus under his command, and any that do choose to pick the fight, are likely to be a tailed-off second. I think he should be a 2/5 chance - and he's only that big due to ongoing concerns that photos will surface of his bell-end buried deep in a farmyard animal of some description.

Otherwise, he is stuck-on.
 
Last edited:
Ec you are "using an example" that doesn't exist

I didnt say I agreed with it. Read my posts

Ive never been a fan of boris who irks me but I think he's in the running. Unlike the others he can reach over the heads. Hes not out of this at all
 
Grasshopper said:
Osborne at odds-against is surely a tap-in?

The Tories do not have another credible candidate to run against him.

People may enjoy the calamitous bufoon act that is Boris Johnson, but they don't particularly want him representing the country at anything more important than barreling into 8yo Japanese kids for a laugh. He is much more effective in his Court Jester role, whereas he is a liability as a Leader.

Osborne dwarfs every other Tory candidate in stature, experience, political-savvy, and dare-I-say intellect. He has the party apparatus under his command, and any that do choose to pick the fight, are likely to be a tailed-off second. I think he should be a 2/5 chance - and he's only that big due to ongoing concerns that photos will surface of his bell-end buried deep in a farmyard animal of some description.

Otherwise, he is stuck-on.
Click to expand...

osbourne isn't that savvy really is he?..for instance he would have made sure he put tax credits on a finance bill and kept the Lords at bay..schoolboy error ...just on that alone

i don't think he will be viewed as a leader by those within the party either. He isn't a credible party leader imo..then again as we have seen..predicting party leaders rarely goes with the odds no matter who looks a shoo in or not. his price is dire when you consider how quickly things change in politics.
 
I think your judgement is slightly tainted due to your personal dislike for the Tories, EC1.

It's the Party leader market, which is a closed-shop of people who think differently from you. A card-carrying Tory will see Osborne as the Chancellor who guided the country out of the worst recession in a century, who delivered a growing economy where other countries couldn't manage it, and who had the balls to cut the welfare bill. This gives him massive credibility (and probably popularity) within the Conservative caucus.

And don't judge his political savvy based on what Joe Public might think in a transient moment - because Joe doesn't get a vote in this particular election. Osborne is a thoroughly-shrewd operator within the Party, and his political savvy is manifest in the degree of control/influence he exerts over it and policy in general.

You don't want to be betting based on wishful thinking. I reckon you will do your stones if you lay him, tbh - he is a cert any way I look at it.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I think your judgement is slightly tainted due to your personal dislike for the Tories, EC1.

It's the Party leader market, which is a closed-shop of people who think differently from you. A card-carrying Tory will see Osborne as the Chancellor who guided the country out of the worst recession in a century, who delivered a growing economy where other countries couldn't manage it, and who had the balls to cut the welfare bill. This gives him massive credibility (and probably popularity) within the Conservative caucus.

And don't judge his political savvy based on what Joe Public might think in a transient moment - because Joe doesn't get a vote in this particular election. Osborne is a thoroughly-shrewd operator within the Party, and his political savvy is manifest in the degree of control/influence he exerts over it and policy in general.

You don't want to be betting based on wishful thinking. I reckon you will do your stones if you lay him, tbh - he is a cert any way I look at it.
Click to expand...

if it were based on not liking the tories then i would think him a good bet wouldn't i?..that doesn't really add up as i wouldn't see any of them as oppo to him

i don't bet on wishful thinking..i bet my judgement..same as i did on backing the tories to get in with a majority just based on adding 5% to the polls that allows for folk not admitting before the election that they will vote tory..so when they are both level on pre polls..it actually means the trories are in front..many people read the polls as they were quoted... landed taht one at 16/1..but if i had bet on wishful thinking then i can guarantee you it wouldn't have been for a tory majority.

no i won't be tieing money up in it..just commenting really that he is a daft price. I don't see his partnership with Cameron adding anything to him..call me dave isn't that popular in his own party and osbourne will always be viewed with him in mind.

its all about opinion..i base mine on personal judgement..as always
 
Osbourne is genuinely personally liked across all sides of the house. That may surprise some but that's been reported many times across all media. He's supposed to be a very easy guy to deal with. These things can count

i think he's very sharp and would make a decent leader. Somewhat more so than the half asleep catweazle

it is also said about Johnson that the more people know him the less they like him
 
clivex said:
Osbourne is genuinely personally liked across all sides of the house. That may surprise some but that's been reported many times across all media. He's supposed to be a very easy guy to deal with. These things can count

i think he's very sharp and would make a decent leader. Somewhat more so than the half asleep catweazle

it is also said about Johnson that the more people know him the less they like him
Click to expand...

personal like isn't enough though imo Clive, and i think they will want a break from the Cameron angle..we''ll see..i just do not see anyone should be that short a price...we saw what happened to short priced favourites re the Labour one. Who was the most "liked" person in labours leadership?..i doubt it would gave been JC.
 
Sorry to butt in guys, but you can probably between you explain this tax credits thing to me in words I understand - I'd hazard a guess that from an opposition point of view I will be told "booooo tories" and from their point of view it will be "yay tories, we've done this and this to make up for doing this" and I'm quite confused. As I understand it - basic wage will be set at £9 an hour in a few years time. At the same time, they are doing something to the working tax credits, yes? What exactly are they doing to them - cutting them out completely or just right back to make them much more difficult to get? I'm now the stereotype single working parent, decentish pay ( though less than £9 an hour at the moment) for my full time job, I get the across the board child support and WTC, which are due to go up when I start her at nursery so I can stay full time at work.

Hit me with both sides ( the boooo and the yay ones!) cos I really don't understand.

Thankyou !!
 
trudij said:
Sorry to butt in guys, but you can probably between you explain this tax credits thing to me in words I understand - I'd hazard a guess that from an opposition point of view I will be told "booooo tories" and from their point of view it will be "yay tories, we've done this and this to make up for doing this" and I'm quite confused. As I understand it - basic wage will be set at £9 an hour in a few years time. At the same time, they are doing something to the working tax credits, yes? What exactly are they doing to them - cutting them out completely or just right back to make them much more difficult to get? I'm now the stereotype single working parent, decentish pay ( though less than £9 an hour at the moment) for my full time job, I get the across the board child support and WTC, which are due to go up when I start her at nursery so I can stay full time at work.

Hit me with both sides ( the boooo and the yay ones!) cos I really don't understand.

Thankyou !!
Click to expand...

they wanted to drop the thresholds so that fewer people could claim or it would reduce the amount you get based on a sliding scale.

the plan was to send people a Christmas present letter in December explaining the changes that would have been impemented from April next year..a nice little gift

the problem is..the areas where you would gain this money back would take years to come into play..and even then its been calculated that allowing for every gain..more childcare..living wage etc..the average family on tax credits would be 1300 a year worse off...but next april considerably worse off than that until such time living wage kicked in etc
 
Ok, so until the letter comes ( which presumably won't arrive now until they have sorted out the lords saying no?) nobody knows for certain what their plan is?
 
trudij said:
Ok, so until the letter comes ( which presumably won't arrive now until they have sorted out the lords saying no?) nobody knows for certain what their plan is?
Click to expand...

the original threshold changes will be on line somewhere..we won't find out until his Aurumn statement what exactly is happening re implementing them...he was asked what will happen but its a big secret and will not be revealed until that statement..so just wait for his Autumn statement..all will be revealed.
 
EC1 said:
if it were based on not liking the tories then i would think him a good bet wouldn't i?..that doesn't really add up as i wouldn't see any of them as oppo to him[/quote4]

i don't bet on wishful thinking..i bet my judgement..same as i did on backing the tories to get in with a majority just based on adding 5% to the polls that allows for folk not admitting before the election that they will vote tory..so when they are both level on pre polls..it actually means the trories are in front..many people read the polls as they were quoted... landed taht one at 16/1..but if i had bet on wishful thinking then i can guarantee you it wouldn't have been for a tory majority.
Click to expand...

Don't see that any of this is particularly relevant, considering the 'races' in question have no similarities. You were right re the General Election, and a %age of the voting population simply refusing to acknowledge they would vote Tory when polled.......but different rules apply when you're talking about electing a Tory Leader.

no i won't be tieing money up in it..just commenting really that he is a daft price. I don't see his partnership with Cameron adding anything to him..call me dave isn't that popular in his own party and osbourne will always be viewed with him in mind.
Click to expand...

Your basis for thinking he is a daft price is wrong - that's my point.
 
Back
Top