Oct 29, 2011, Multiply, Conservative government

hate the bloody conservative government

Oct 29, '11 9:06 PM for everyone

I hate the bloody conservative government


I’ve just heard on the news that this government, partly in response to the riots earlier this year, has decided that if a person is in receipt of benefit and unemployed the courts will be able to take £25.00 per week from their benefits in court fines if they break the law.  This will come into effect in 2013. Previously the courts were only able to take £5.00 per week from benefits. I’ve been online and made a rough calculation. A couple, both over 18 with two young children will receive approx £150 per week, £105 income support for them and £45 tax credit for the children. Take £25.00 from that and you are left with about £120 per week for a family of four. Our lovely Prime Minister has decided this, the same man who has reported personal wealth of £30 million.

My major concern is not with the ‘crime’ what ever that was, but the family, those two children will be living well below the poverty line, and the poor parents will probably be forced into further law breaking just to feed their children. Why should the jobless be treated more harshly than those in work?? Is this just another punishment for being jobless in a society that fails to provide jobs for every one? Why should a person without a job be left with less to feed his family than another man who has committed the same crime but happens to have a job??

Tags: political

Prev: Occupy London protesters may be evicted
Next: St Paul's Clerics suppress report on bankers' greed

reply edit delete

42 Comments

Add a Comment

delete reply aaranaardvark wrote on Nov 1, '11 tismek said Im all for devolution! I personally think its ludicrous that London dictates what the other countries do. You can count on my support for the total break up of the UK and the abolition of the concept of Great Britain.

delete reply aaranaardvark wrote on Nov 1, '11 forgetmenot525 said Although I have to say one not so pleasant side effect of getting rid of all Scottish MP's from Westminster would be an immediate increase Tory support. We wouldn't notice the difference, Labour and Lib Dem MPs are Tories too......having MPs from the Celtic fringe has never made things better as Gordon Brown illustrates perfectly.

delete reply aaranaardvark wrote on Nov 1, '11 forgetmenot525 said .persuade your Westminster government to grant Independence to Scotland and the 'west lothian' problem will go away. The problem is it is NOT our Westminster government.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 31, '11 aaranaardvark said This is an absolute scandal, the so-called West Lothian Question means that England is partly governed by MPs from Scotland who are not accountable to their electors for the decisions they make about us. We have had this conversation before, like I said.........persuade your Westminster government to grant Independence to Scotland and the 'west lothian' problem will go away. If you as an Englishman want an English Parliament, do as the Scots etc did and lobby for one, demand your own parliament with as much determination as the Scots demanded theirs and you will have it. If the English have no Parliament of their own, its because of their own apathy and disinterest not because of any thing these border celts did or didn't do. Although I have to say one not so pleasant side effect of getting rid of all Scottish MP's from Westminster would be an immediate increase Tory support.

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 31, '11 Im all for devolution! I personally think its ludicrous that London dictates what the other countries do.

delete reply aaranaardvark wrote on Oct 31, '11 forgetmenot525 said , one for the Westminster Parliament and one for the Scottish Parliament. When voting for the Scottish Parliament we can vote SNP, Green or Socialist as well as the other mainstream parties. This is an absolute scandal, the so-called West Lothian Question means that England is partly governed by MPs from Scotland who are not accountable to their electors for the decisions they make about us. These Scottish MPs like their Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts are part of the British government which along with the British monarchy are an imperialist coalition of private interests antithetical to the best interests of the English people, England has no government. We don't need laws made by unaccountable Scots Irish or Welsh MPs and also vetted by Prince Charles in his feudal fiefdom of the Duchy of Cornwall. England's borders should be the River Tamar, we don't want or need the Duchy of Cornwall and we don't want or need MPs from the Celtic fringe making laws for us that do not apply to their own electorate. Quite simply the citizens of West Lothian like every other region of Scotland have no right to elect England's lawmakers. I strongly support the Scots independence lobby, because when Scotland is separate perhaps the 85% of the population of the British Isles may at last have their own government and England might even have an English head of state which it has not had since 1066. This side of the borders with Scotland Wales and Cornwall the priority is to keep MPs from these regions out of OUR parliament, this is English devolution from the United Kingdom, an imaginary country that has never actually existed since it was first dreamt up in 1707.

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 31, '11 forgetmenot525 said exactly.............all mainstream parties have lost touch with the ordinary man. And woman! :o)

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 31, '11 bennett1 said That is what the Occupy movement is all about. You put your finger on it. exactly.............all mainstream parties have lost touch with the ordinary man.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 31, '11, edited on Oct 31, '11 tismek said Vote Green :o) Or better still, stand as a candidate so others can vote for you! It costs nothing and at the end of the day, if your name is on the ballot paper, that's all you need :o) No campaigning required!! All you need to do is get 10 signatures to support your application from your ward :o) Things are a little different here, we have two elections , one for the Westminster Parliament and one for the Scottish Parliament. When voting for the Scottish Parliament we can vote SNP, Green or Socialist as well as the other mainstream parties. For the Scottish Parliament I do sometimes vote Green or Socialist because we have proportional representation and every vote counts, also I don't have to worry about keeping the conservatives out of power, they are universally hated north of the border. But the elections for Westminster are different. there is no proportional representation and my priority is to keep the conservatives out.

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Oct 31, '11 forgetmenot525 said all political parties favour the rich over the people. That is what the Occupy movement is all about. You put your finger on it.

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 31, '11 Vote Green :o) Or better still, stand as a candidate so others can vote for you! It costs nothing and at the end of the day, if your name is on the ballot paper, that's all you need :o) No campaigning required!! All you need to do is get 10 signatures to support your application from your ward :o)

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 31, '11 Thats the problem we dont have a choice any more all political parties favour the rich over the people. But no matter what, just like every one here i would vote for any one over a conservative. They openly favour the rich and look down on the poor

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 31, '11 forgetmenot525 said no contest, the Conservatives only ever look out for the rich and powerful. Its a sad choice anyway, I would prefer to see other options, but all the while they are the only realistic choice.............no choice, any thing is better than a conservative government. But THEY ARE ALL Conservative. Every single one of them. You can't get a fag paper between 'em when it comes to corruption and nepotism.

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 31, '11 And I couldn't see a Country run by Milliband either. Another disaster in the making that.

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 31, '11 He was worse! LOL He plunged the world into depression!! :o)

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 30, '11 tismek said h come on Loretta - keeping Gordon Brown as PM??? No way could it have happened. you are right, he wouldn't be my first choice for PM, but he couldn't be any worse than Cameron. Brown is more of a well meaning buffoon, a fool, and he would never have survived as Prime Minister anyway, someone else would have taken over. Cameron is a sanctimonious, self righteous, self serving, evil SOB totally devoid of compassion for his fellow man. The labour Party has strayed from its roots and let its supporters down, but if the only choice is between a Labour or Conservative government ............no contest, the Conservatives only ever look out for the rich and powerful. Its a sad choice anyway, I would prefer to see other options, but all the while they are the only realistic choice.............no choice, any thing is better than a conservative government.

delete reply forelithe wrote on Oct 30, '11 Odd this...I was just remarking to another multiply friend about the choice words Aristotle had in regards to the measure of a civilization.

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 30, '11 Where are the measures designed to prevent crime in the first place? Where is the dialogue? The support?

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 30, '11 Aside from that comment can I just say - well done for posting this!! I've had house guests all weekend so Ive not been around to comment on this. I live on benefits as a carer - and you quite rightly say that its a kosh to subjugate those who have no choice but to exist on a lower income. I have tried, as you know, every which way to work, but as a carer and without any support to do so, it is impossible for me. People are on benefits for a myriad of reasons but primarily there are only FOUR ways you can get any benefit support in the UK from Income support, which also includes access to other benefits such as housing benefit and council tax benefit. Those four reasons are: If you are disabled - this is a full medically assessed disability which has to be confirmed by a GP, at least one consultant, and a nurse, support worker from social services, or medical therapist. Currently nearly all applications for disability benefits are refused, even when backed by the DoSS own medical assessment. 70% of those are awarded on appeal, and a further 60% on re-application. It takes an average of a year to get a disability benefit award. 2. If you are a Carer for a disabled person. Under Government guidelines this means you must be caring for the person full-time for a minimum of 37 hours a week. If the person you care for (adult or child) is admitted to hospital for a period of more than two weeks in a six week period, then you can have your benefit revoked even if you are continuing to provide social care for the caree whilst they are in hospital. You are not entitled to claim an alternative benefit in this instance. 3. If you are a pensioner aged over 65 years. You cannot have savings of more than £6,500 and you cannot claim if you have a private pension which puts you even £1 over the maximum allowable income of just £10 a week. 4.. If you are a NURSING mother of child aged under 5 years old. Once a child reaches school age, mothers now are assessed by the benefits agency for return to work. They may remain on benefits until the child is 11, but after that they are required to find work or move onto unemployment benefits, which can put their home at risk. That is it. There are no exceptions. I wanted to attend with my son a demonstration (a peaceful one) over the proposed cuts to disability benefits the Government is proposing. This would involve combining the current "ESA" (Employment Support Allowance) and Disability allowance under one "Universal benefit". This would mean a real-term cut in allowances for disabled people and make it even harder for them to get the benefits in the first place. If something had happened at this demonstration and we were "swept" up in it, we (my son and I) are no longer eligible for legal aid following changes made by the previous government in 2007. We would have very little defence and in all likelihood even be unable to attend as my son would be too ill to withstand the pressures of court. These draconian measures would leave us destitute. Of course I have no intention of EVER breaking the law. But as you say, the odds are now very much stacked against us. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Nessie

delete reply tismek wrote on Oct 30, '11 forgetmenot525 said Very bad, I was surprised the lib dems decided to go into government with him. They could have formed a majority government with labour. I have no idea why Nick Clegg ( Lib Dem) chose Cameron, but I do wonder if he regrets it Oh come on Loretta - keeping Gordon Brown as PM??? No way could it have happened.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Oct 30, '11 Auch. From your link. ""We should be giving the courts the maximum possible freedom to make sure people pay for their crimes whether they're on benefits or not." So, imposing a fixed penalty is giving the courts maximum freedom? What a weird viewpoint.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 30, '11 bernardv said One question though. Has this new ruling been passed by Parliament and approved by the Lords or is it just a proposal at present? Seems as if it is actually going to happen http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15503503

delete reply bernardv wrote on Oct 30, '11 I agree. I've always been a Conservative voter and after the complete and utter mess Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made of the Country I'd rather hoped for something more. Sadly, David Cameron is no Maggie Thatcher.....not by a long shot.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 30, '11 bernardv said Nick Clegg was denied the position of deputy prime minister under Gordon Brown, and I can see why

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 30, '11 bernardv said One question though. Has this new ruling been passed by Parliament and approved by the Lords or is it just a proposal at present? not sure, was writing as it was reported on TV late last night/ early morning...........need to wait and see I guess. As I listened to him and watched him, I could hear the contempt he has for 'those people' as he put it. He really hates people on benefit, he thinks they should be eternally grateful for the crumbs his government throw them, his views are akin to the Victorian 'deserving poor' attitude, he very obviously thinks that those on benefit somehow have less rights than the rest of us, he doesn't see the benefit system as an essential part of a responsible caring system, he begrudges every penny spent on 'those people', to him benefit is not a right, it is a charitable act for which the recipient must be humble, thankful, subservient, grateful and above all... they must know their place. He is an abomination of a man

delete reply bernardv wrote on Oct 30, '11 One question though. Has this new ruling been passed by Parliament and approved by the Lords or is it just a proposal at present?

delete reply bernardv wrote on Oct 30, '11 It's a typical reaction from Cameron, a man who seems to operate in 'sound bites'. Most of the people with a job in this Country will approve of this (Why should the feckless not be treated harshly? Idle scroungers). And let's face it, Cameron is playing to his working Conservative base. Most of our newspapers encourage the view of a feral underclass and when the readers allow themselves to be told what to think by the media instead of looking at the results of government actions then this is what we get.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Oct 30, '11 Nick Clegg was denied the position of deputy prime minister under Gordon Brown, Cameron though promised him the job. Nick Clegg always puts himself and his 98,000 euros a year pension from the EU first. He has no interest in the Country, only in his own ego.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 30, '11 mitchylr said Back then I was a union activist, I took part in the long hard struggle against Maggie's campaign to destroy the rights of the working ma thats the weird thing, so was I, I worked for the NHS and I was part of the union and fought against the cuts etc. BUT..........maybe time changes the way you remember, I don't have the memory of hating her government the way I hate this one. At the time I was aware of the right wing policies she was trying to implement, but I don't think I realised how rich and powerful the elite few were. Its the realisation of how deep the corruption is of how rich and uncaring our government is and how different they are to us. I get the impression Cameron & co think about the little people with disdain, they don't care about the poor, they think the poor are to be punished for being poor, its as if they speak another language...........I hate them with a vengeance, they are evil.

delete reply mitchylr wrote on Oct 30, '11 forgetmenot525 said I don't think I fully understood what was happening to our society when maggie took over, I was younger and maybe didn't have the insight I have today. I remember it all too well. Back then I was a union activist, I took part in the long hard struggle against Maggie's campaign to destroy the rights of the working man. Thatcher and Cameron are just two faces of the same coin. Maggie took away the rights of the working man. Cameron is now trying to do the same to the non-working man.

delete reply aaranaardvark wrote on Oct 30, '11 I disagree, there is a long and honourable tradition of hating toffs in this country which brought us the Peasants Revolt of 1381, the English Civil Wars of 1642-1651, the Peterloo Massacre of 1815, the Chartist Movement 1838 -1859, the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 and the Poll Tax Riots of 1990. All of this was driven by a well founded hate for the British ruling class and all of these events brought about political changes. The pre-20th century outbursts of class hatred delivered the reforms that came to known as the 'welfare state' that Cameron and his IMF employers are presently trying to destroy. They must be defeated and for that to happen we need a critical mass of hatred to develop that will spontaneously combust like it has in the past. We have dealt with the Camerons of this world many times before and we will deal with him in due course, in the meantime never let that hate go cold, it is the fuel of change which will only come out of destruction of the existing corrupt and criminal order.

delete reply djdx wrote on Oct 30, '11 Hating won't change anything though. Only changing ourselves, being and doing good, can help. Now protesting could be doing good. :-)

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 29, '11 Its on the news again, apparently 35% of people brought before the court following the London riots were in receipt of benefit and this 'measure' in the words of our PM will 'hopefully it will make people (on benefit) think twice before breaking the law in future'' This man is stopping just short of saying that those on benefit should be treated differently to those not on benefit, he is clever, he has not actually said those on benefit have less rights, but that is certainly what he means.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 29, '11 bennett1 said Floats my boat. yep......... me too, I don't think I fully understood what was happening to our society when maggie took over, I was younger and maybe didn't have the insight I have today. But I don't remember hating any government the way I hate this one.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 29, '11 veryfrank said Please don't post anything tonight about religious fanaticism and politics, my heart couldn't take it. Actually, my comments would get me bounced from Multiply. Ok..............I wont, I'm just about done for tonight anyway. The 'religious' thing does usually affect you more than us. But I will just say something about the St Pauls protest site. I'm keeping a very close eye on what is happening at St Pauls, I don't think the protesters ever intended to confront the church but I do see this protest causing a division with in the church. Eventually the elite of the C of E who run St Pauls are going to have to decide which side of the fence they sit. The C of E is expert at sitting on the fence and not offending any one, but they want the protesters off their doorstep, they have asked nicely and of course the protesters are still there. The actual legality concerning ownership of land occupied by the protesters is complex, some of it is common ground. In the coming weeks we will see if St Pauls supports the protesters against a corrupt system, or if they are part of the system and aid and abet the eviction of the protesters. Already one senior clergy has resigned rather than risk being part of the process that forcibly evicts the protesters. Its an interesting situation, and one I hope is making the elite of the church reconsider exactly what their faith means in todays society.

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Oct 29, '11 veryfrank said . I can honestly say that I have never hated anything or anyone as much as I do our conservative politicians and those who support them. Floats my boat.

delete reply veryfrank wrote on Oct 29, '11 forgetmenot525 said I hate the bloody conservative government There are things throughout my life that I thought that I 'hated', really hated, at the time maybe I did to some large degree. I can honestly say that I have never hated anything or anyone as much as I do our conservative politicians and those who support them. Intellectually I can't understand how human beings can be so devoid of compassion and charity, especially since most of them do fanfares on their belief in god. I realize that the god thing is more our problem than yours, it is a 'dog whistle' here to signal the righteous to rebel against anyone who does not look and act as they do. I read and I hear others speak of things in the UK and I don't really see that there is any difference between your conservatives and our republicans. They are all trash cut from the same cloth as Reagan and Thatcher. I understand how Cameron got where he is, but like Bush here for his second term, I for the life of me can't conceive of how many people could be that stupid and all at the same time. Sounds to me like you all have been royally "Murdocked" out of your Government, as we have. In other words, royally screwed by big money interests by influencing the ignorant to vote for their puppets. Please don't post anything tonight about religious fanaticism and politics, my heart couldn't take it. Actually, my comments would get me bounced from Multiply.

delete reply esoterika713 wrote on Oct 29, '11 I see your point Loretta. And I agree with you. It is just one way for the people that have money to lord it over on the poor. I dislike most Conservative governments. Including mine. Well, they say you can't complain if you don't vote. Lucky for me I get to complain. lol.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 29, '11 Very bad, I was surprised the lib dems decided to go into government with him. They could have formed a majority government with labour. I have no idea why Nick Clegg ( Lib Dem) chose Cameron, but I do wonder if he regrets it

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Oct 29, '11 It is bully tactics. It is fascism and there is an "ism" to be feared.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Oct 29, '11, edited on Oct 29, '11 This is bully boy tactics, it means that no matter how bad things get, people will be too scared to protest. Anyone who protests will be arrested for some made up minor offence, marched in front of the courts and lose a large proportion of their meager benefits. A plan to keep the poorest and most down trodden in society, exactly where they are.........at the bottom of the heap

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Oct 29, '11 It's awful. I understand how you ended up with Cameron, but it seems like it was a bad trade-off for those that made the deal.