Change font size
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:46 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 18 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 12:03 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Defending the increase in the foreign aid budget, Cameron insisted he was "proud" that the UK would not "balance its books on the back of the poorest". Meanwhile, the Treasury has confirmed that the over-60s will lose additional payments, which were introduced in 2008 and designed to help them heat their homes while domestic fuel bills are rising.

View full article here

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 12:33 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:47 pm
Posts: 489
Location: Lytham St Annes, Lancashire, England
Aren't independent schools exempted from the national curriculum?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 12:45 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 204
Location: England
I truly, truly despair when I read such news. I also get angry and have just blasted off a letter to my MP (Michael Moore, for it is he!) about it, though I know that will do no good. I shall just receive the usual platitudes from him. I did suggest in my note that his compatriot Huhne (if he could drag himself away from other matters) announced that instead of reducing support for fuel bills for some of the poorest in society, he instead would reduce/cease the obscene feed-in tariffs paid to some of the wealthiest in the land.

Is Referism enough? It should be hangemfromlampostsism, every single man jack of the barstewards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 2:46 am 

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:05 pm
Posts: 288
Hey, over there! Has everyone forgotten what a Free Market is, and that governments should not be involved in them?

It is a disgrace that Western governments, in general, are pursuing policies to increase the price of energy and food and poverty. Those responsible should be taken outback behind the proverbial woodshed and spanked. PDT_Armataz_01_19


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 4:35 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 6700
HW, your letters to MPs and papers would make a good basis for a blog, add a forum and see if you draw people in to have their say?

_________________
If you don't get grumpy as you grow older then you aren't paying attention


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:40 am 

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:22 pm
Posts: 86
As you imply the real story is that governments and their civil servants (or should that be the other other way round?) shouldn't be in the energy market.
My old Mum on receipt of her winter fuel allowance used to go straight down to M & S and blow the lot on clothes. She made no secret of this, and that nice Anthony Blair got her vote every time.
Politicians know there are votes to be had from the elderly. As a group they are the ones who have the time and leisure to actually support the parties and vote. The allowance is a straight forward bribe.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:36 pm
Posts: 511
Location: Burton upon Trent
All the pensioner freebies should go and the money saved be paid in the basic state pension where the better off would at least pay tax on it?

I practice what I preach, I don't have a bus pass but I haven't yet got around to returning my winter fuel allowance ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 8:30 am 

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:27 am
Posts: 90
Rising fuel bills?

Surely not!

According to Reuters,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/0 ... 0720110509
"Britons may need to pay 50-60 pounds on top of their annual energy bills in 2020 to cover the cost for building renewable energy capacity, mainly onshore and offshore wind farms, a government advisory body said on Monday.
Energy bills are expected to rise to nearly 600 pounds per year by the end of the decade as a transition towards a low-carbon energy market requires huge investments in new, greener technologies, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) said in its Renewable Energy Review, a report commissioned by the coalition government when it took office one year ago.
But households could curb energy demand by around 14 percent if they install energy-saving measures in their homes and therefore reduce final bills, the report said."

So we will only have to pay an extra £1 per week, not until 2020 and if we insulate it will actually cost less than £ 600 for all our energy, gas, electricity, coal & oil (if we use them), AND fuel for our cars!

Yes, I can believe that!

Perhaps if we send the Third World (including India, of course) a few rolls of insulation and some twisty light bulbs they'll be so rich they'll be able to send us some money in 2020?

Nice to know that Lord "Adair" Turner (who also runs the FSA, the watchdog which didn't even whimper as the financial meltdown approached) and his chums on the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) all live in the real world!

And the reason we don't slaughter them is........?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:14 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Martin Brumby wrote:
And the reason we don't slaughter them is........?


You forgot the "rise up" bit.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 10:21 am 

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:51 pm
Posts: 238
The poor elderly who will suffer hardship as a result of forthcoming fuel allowance cuts (in a non-warming world) will still vote for those parties which will impose these cuts, and let's not kid ourselves that Labour or LibDems would have been different. At the last general election, Mrs Duffy still voted Labour - she even endorsed one of the Milibands during the subsequent elections for the leadership of the Labour Party.

What I'm saying is that an argument that these people deserve their fate could be put, but I'll stop short of actually making that argument.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 10:33 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Allan_Aberdeen wrote:
The poor elderly who will suffer hardship as a result of forthcoming fuel allowance cuts (in a non-warming world) will still vote for those parties which will impose these cuts, and let's not kid ourselves that Labour or LibDems would have been different. At the last general election, Mrs Duffy still voted Labour - she even endorsed one of the Milibands during the subsequent elections for the leadership of the Labour Party.

What I'm saying is that an argument that these people deserve their fate could be put, but I'll stop short of actually making that argument.


One could say that we do not deserve the governments that you get. But I could also say that we are not powerless. We have the capability to force change. Do we have the will?

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 12:20 pm 

Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:17 pm
Posts: 1384
There's an article in the DM about Cameron defending the aid budget.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icism.html

He claims he's motiivated by having seen Live Aid in 1985. Nice to know we have an intellectual heavy weight at the helm and a man who takes promises seriously. What annoys me about the aid budget is not just that it's a waste of money, it's that it's positively counter productive. It's pretty clear there are motivations for this beyond a simplistic wish to help poor people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 1:56 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 805
It is right and proper for government to keep warm the elderly and disabled who feel the cold more. Sometimes intervention is needed to mitigate the effects of the free market (of which no perfect examples exist outside of economic theory) as its solution to the problem would be cheaper coffins utilising economies of scale. People have a value beyond the monetary.
If referism means anything it means seizing power and value for the individual from those who only view them as a mass, whether from the right or left, capitalism or command economy. Speculators trading gas contracts and forcing up prices are as criminally responsible as NHS hospitals where elderly patients die of thirst and hunger without dignity.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 6:26 pm 

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:22 pm
Posts: 86
Brian wrote:
Speculators trading gas contracts and forcing up prices are as criminally responsible as NHS hospitals where elderly patients die of thirst and hunger without dignity.


Sorry Brian but all the evidence indicates that Speculators drive down prices, its government controls and interventions that drive prices up. As this post explains its the Government adding to the price due to their regulations.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not on the back of the poorest
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 8:41 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 805
Ron1954 wrote:
Brian wrote:
Speculators trading gas contracts and forcing up prices are as criminally responsible as NHS hospitals where elderly patients die of thirst and hunger without dignity.


Sorry Brian but all the evidence indicates that Speculators drive down prices, its government controls and interventions that drive prices up. As this post explains its the Government adding to the price due to their regulations.


Where, why? All the evidence? The present aluminium market or rather warehouse suggests otherwise. As I comprehend the post, it is a criticism of Dave finding money to burn overseas at the expense of old people freezing to death at home.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 18 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net