Is Cameron Even More Barmy Than Osborne?

[deanf]

Not necessarily. My advice to anyone would be to start saving hard when your kids are born. That's what I did.

Both of mine came out of University debt free. When the first one went to Glasgow, we bought a 3 bedroom flat & kept it for the 7 years it took for both of them to get through the degree courses. For the first 2 years, we were able to rent out 2 of the bedrooms to 2 of their fellow students, when the other one started, one of the other students was turfed out to make way for daughter number 2, and for the final 2 years, we could rent out both again.

Then we flogged the flat for a very tidy profit.

When my first daughter returned to University to take a law degree, she was able largely to finance the endeavour herself.


Chris

I can't believe the parents of the 400,000 people who started Uni this year didn't think of that sooner. Although there is a slight flaw in the plan that you needed two students who's parents' priority was sticking food on the table to make it work.

 

[Snufkin]

I've not really been following this issue / thread, but the thing I don't understand with the proposed Tory policy to force NEETs into training / force the long term unemployed to stay in Job Centres all day every day is who the hell is going to foot the bill? The former will require a massive expansion of state training / education facilities, the latter a massive expansion of Job Centre real-estate and staff to cope with such a huge number of people hanging around from 9-5. The whole thing strikes me as utterly dumb. Surely the most cost-effective position in a flat marketplace is to pay the unemployed / unneeded labour to stay at home. Victimising them serves no purpose beyond the odd idiotic political soundbite and will only increase the costs to the tax payer / national debt.

Clearly this makes little economic sense but then much of what they are doing makes little sense in the long term UNLESS you are wealthy. If, on the other hand, you are part of the tiny minority who are benefiting from this Governments policies then continuing to stigmatise the victims of it distracts from the ongoing transfer of wealth which does benefit you.

As the old saying goes 'Follow the money'.

 

[deanf]

When I read that sort of thing, and the Daily Mail's Miliband hate-fest, it make me think maybe the Tories know they're doomed and are just having a laugh.

I swear he nearly cracked up laughing just after he said "and don't you lecture us on the NHS again". I did.

 

[TheDecameron]

The Independent.
Billions more to be cut from welfare cash before 2020 in Tory pledge for budget surplus
George Osborne said surplus would be 'insurance against difficult times ahead'

Osborne has to get it from somewhere so he's taking it from the poor and the jobless in a two point calculation-
1. They will never vote for his party anyway.
2. They are an easy target and he can count on two or three of the tabloids to assist the 'hard pressed workers' in learning to despise the the needy.

You have to wonder what this will do for social cohesion and public order.

 

[deanf]

And it'll win a bit of loyalty from the right wingers. I know people who haven't worked for decades and probably never will - in almost each instance I can give you a reason why, and it's not because they are inherently lazy. Give people the opportunity and support to get into work and they will take it. Swathes of people don't understand that.

 

[frankyc2003]

Osborne has to get it from somewhere so he's taking it from the poor and the jobless in a two point calculation-
1. They will never vote for his party anyway.
2. They are an easy target and he can count on two or three of the tabloids to assist the 'hard pressed workers' in learning to despise the the needy.

You have to wonder what this will do for social cohesion and public order.

Absolutely, the permanent denigration of the less well off and disabled ('surely they should work, walk, try harder...' kind of argument), the almost unashamed destruction of any form of social security and welfare system is always on display on a few tabloids.

The Idea that the Tories could deliver a budgetary 'Surplus' by 2020 is preposterous and almost insulting having a look at the economical figures right now. Fuelling the 'recovery' with more state funded debt (help to buy scheme), based on property equity pouring down the high street or whatever is left of it...

How a country has learned to hate & despise the lower class of its society, I have no idea, but that certainly saddens me.
A country that invented the NHS, pioneered and successfully delivered free education to everyone...

 

[Joe Hutch]

And it'll win a bit of loyalty from the right wingers.

But there's no point doing that, because they'll either vote Tory anyway, or vote UKIP because they're pissed off with the EU. OTOH, the Tories are busily antagonising any 'middle-ground' voters who might vote for a Tory party with a slightly less 'bash the poor' approach.

 

[Mescalito]

But there's no point doing that, because they'll either vote Tory anyway, or vote UKIP because they're pissed off with the EU. OTOH, the Tories are busily antagonising any 'middle-ground' voters who might vote for a Tory party with a slightly less 'bash the poor' approach.

Don't you believe it. If the average man in the street perceives he & his family will be better off under the tories, they'll vote tory. Forget the usual indicators. Look at the number of new mortgages, the number of new cars being registered. All the Tories have to do is to keep the level of scepticism concerning Labours ability to manage the economy constant or rising, and to be able to point to things getting better. The "I'm All Right Jack" self-interest of the great middle classes will do the rest for them. People say they are willing to pay more taxes to allow a bigger & better welfare state & then assiduosly vote the other way.

Chris

 

[frankyc2003]

You are absolutely right, and if they win with a majority in 2015, we are in for a hell of a ride! The country will look like an atrophy of itself with a overinflated, over blown SE England and a deserted rest living below poverty line!

The Bigger Society in short!

 

[deanf]

I know plenty of people who should be labour voters who'll go for this type of thing. I love the way the Tories manage to get away with saying one thing and doing another though. So, 'care in the community' meant 'we don't care about the community', 'the big society' was about 'them and us', 'we're all in it together' means 'you're on your own'. Brilliant marketing.

 

[pure sound]

I enjoyed his justification of HS2 (£50Bn-£70Bn?) and how it'll help the North. Not half as much as spending £50-£70Bn in the North would though!

 

[Joe Hutch]

Don't you believe it. If the average man in the street perceives he & his family will be better off under the tories, they'll vote tory. Forget the usual indicators. Look at the number of new mortgages, the number of new cars being registered. All the Tories have to do is to keep the level of scepticism concerning Labours ability to manage the economy constant or rising, and to be able to point to things getting better. The "I'm All Right Jack" self-interest of the great middle classes will do the rest for them. People say they are willing to pay more taxes to allow a bigger & better welfare state & then assiduosly vote the other way.

Chris

Latest opinion polls suggest otherwise:


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%. There was a rather ambiguous six point lead yesterday, something that was equally compatible with a continuing boost, or with the boost fading away. Today’s ten point lead is much clearer, showing Labour continuing to benefit from their conference – or perhaps, from a reaction towards the personalised attack on Ed Miliband’s father by the Mail.

Today we have David Cameron’s own conference speech. If parties do benefit from their conferences, it is normally most visible after their leader’s speech, which tends to get the most publicity and coverage of the week. So far there has not been any obvious boost to Tory fortunes from their conference, but then, it’s rather been overshadowed by the row between the Mail and Ed Miliband. Most of the fieldwork for today’s YouGov poll was done before the speech, so the one to watch is the Thursday night/Friday morning poll, and the polls in the Sunday papers.

 

[Mescalito]

Millibnand will win it for the tories, IMHO. He is about as marketable as a bad smell.

Chris

 

[GTM]

If anyone had any lingering doubts that the present administration has based its entire political stance on relentless scapegoating of its victims, surely Cameron's speech today will resolve them.

In case anyone doesn't know, he proposed to remove benefit entitlement from under 25s who are NEET.

Not such a bad idea if you believe his rubbish about this being a deliberate choice for young people.

But of course we all know that the majority of under 25s would kill for a decent job, apprenticeship, or other opportunity to access a longer term future..

Away from the (pretty ineffective) rabble rousing of the actual speech, the likes of Gove and Maude were muttering about 'helping these young people into a future blah blah'. Maude, interviewed by Paxton clearly had no clue WTF he was talking about and pretty much single handedly demonstrated the 'fag packet' nature of this 'policy'.

Gove of course completely forgot that it was he who:

1. Decimated support/careers guidance/work placement services for young people.
2. Withdrew EMA, which allowed lots of poorer young people to attend full time post 16 education.
3. Along with others, has consistently lied about the number of apprenticeships created. (The bulk are simnply redesignated 'work based learning' opportunities which have no substance until an employer deigns to participate)

Still, I suppose Cam upped his approval factor with the baying mob of blue rinses and those even more disturbing young Tories with barely broken voices who, instead of trying to act like grown ups at conference, really ought to be out somewhere misbehaving or waving a placard.

Mull

Well I have to say, that when it comes to housing benefit at least, I see no reason that society should have to pay for young people that choose to move out of home just so they can be "independent" when they can't afford to do so off their own finances. They can live at home with mum and/or dad as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, there should be exceptions for those whose family relationships make that an impossibility, but it really would have to mean impossible not just "don't get on with".

Whilst I'm a firm believer in the government (us) have a collective responsibility to ensure people get the help they need to gain employment, (because the consequences of not doing so are far more injurious to society as a whole), I don't agree with the "youth get priority" mentality of this and past governments. The youth have a support system, it's called family. They also have no dependants, home or (in general) financial commitments to look after. They are at the beginning of their lives and therefore have far more flexibility in what they can do work wise. It's illogical to give the lions share of the states support to the young at the expense of those who find themselves work less with family, homes and debts to support. The impact on individual lives of not supporting them over the young is far far higher.

 

[GTM]

I've not really been following this issue / thread, but the thing I don't understand with the proposed Tory policy to force NEETs into training / force the long term unemployed to stay in Job Centres all day every day is who the hell is going to foot the bill? The former will require a massive expansion of state training / education facilities, the latter a massive expansion of Job Centre real-estate and staff to cope with such a huge number of people hanging around from 9-5. The whole thing strikes me as utterly dumb. Surely the most cost-effective position in a flat marketplace is to pay the unemployed / unneeded labour to stay at home. Victimising them serves no purpose beyond the odd idiotic political soundbite and will only increase the costs to the tax payer / national debt.

Or how about investing the money in government provided (not private profiteering companies) industry training? Totally free of charge to the unemployed and even the Dept of W&P dept. I mean actual government employee run and funded (from our taxes) training facilities providing industry recognised certifications/qualifications. A bit radical maybe. Oh and that would be available to every unemployed person not just the under 25's like most such schemes are these days.

 

[Mescalito]

Or how about investing the money in government provided (not private profiteering companies) industry training? Totally free of charge to the unemployed and even the Dept of W&P dept. I mean actual government employee run and funded (from our taxes) training facilities providing industry recognised certifications/qualifications. A bit radical maybe. Oh and that would be available to every unemployed person not just the under 25's like most such schemes are these days.

a) Cost too much
b) Would rapidly end up with 25 admin for every trainer.

Chris

 

[Mullardman]

Its worse than that. My youngest has just started Uni in London and the accommodation provided by Uni but owned and managed by Unite cost a few quid under £8K pa! Its in Southwark and within walking distance of the colleges.

The student loan and grant is not enough to live on after taking out the accommodation cost and I will be having to supplement by £3-4K pa.

Cheers,

DV

Yes, I had a similar problem with both of my daughters and it was really difficult because, as you are so fond of pointing out, I am conseederably poorer than yow.

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

Well I have to say, that when it comes to housing benefit at least, I see no reason that society should have to pay for young people that choose to move out of home just so they can be "independent" when they can't afford to do so off their own finances. They can live at home with mum and/or dad as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting mix of philosophies in your posts GTM. What you propose above is that poorer parents should have to compound their poverty by keeping their kids at home for longer, whilst the more wealthy will either be able to bear the cost, or suport their little darlings into domiciliary independence.

Of course, there should be exceptions for those whose family relationships make that an impossibility, but it really would have to mean impossible not just "don't get on with".

Of course.

Whilst I'm a firm believer in the government (us) have a collective responsibility to ensure people get the help they need to gain employment, (because the consequences of not doing so are far more injurious to society as a whole), I don't agree with the "youth get priority" mentality of this and past governments. The youth have a support system, it's called family. They also have no dependants, home or (in general) financial commitments to look after. They are at the beginning of their lives and therefore have far more flexibility in what they can do work wise. It's illogical to give the lions share of the states support to the young at the expense of those who find themselves work less with family, homes and debts to support. The impact on individual lives of not supporting them over the young is far far higher.

Lots to go at there GTM.

Why do you think 'youth get priority'?
May have been the case until very recently, but Gove and his associates scrapped the universal entitlement to careers advice and guidance for young people as of a year or so back. They also did away with EMA and lots of training. You have to remember that the current administration do not deal in facts. They are liars, to a man.
It is also a mistake to automatically assume that 'family' represents a valid support mechanism for young people in this context.

We still have a stupid rule which IIR, applies to all ages. This is the one which restricts benefit claimants to 16 hours study per week or they risk being seen as 'unavailable for work'.

Also, I am not aware of any government funded training beyond NVQ II. The point here of course being that it is the Level III which is the work based component and which is crucial for gaining employment.

This situation has existed for at least 30 years, is stupid and is never addressed.

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

a) Cost too much
b) Would rapidly end up with 25 admin for every trainer.

Chris

Your usual bollocks Chris.

Your beloved Maggie hi-jacked the late 70s Labour 'New Training Initiative' and turned it into YTS. She used it more as a massage for the Youth Unemployment figures (Which she created.. any bells ringing here?) than a training system but, despite all of her abuses, it eventually morphed into 'Youth Training' and was responsible for getting huge numbers of young people into meaningful employment.

Your 'a', is demonstrably and historically untrue.

Your 'b', is your usual fantasy.

Mull

 

[dynodebs]

It's perfectly possible for a 25 year old to be in a committed relationship and with children, earning good enough money to support a partner and children, and to be made redundant. Why this age and not 26 or 36 or whatever?

What this is about is setting a principle so that it can be amended later. 25 now, 35 next time, whenever after that. It's just a device, but it's a nasty one and needs to be resisted.

Debs