View Full Version : "want to know how benefits changes might affect you?" - The one which you can discuss
I see that the prospective LibDem councillor for Thurso started a thread about the savage benefit cuts being imposed by the Tories, and then closed it, thus stifling any debate about it.
Maybe he was acting on orders from Dave Cameron clone Nick Clegg
He wrote;
"..want to know how benefits changes might affect you?
There are massive changes in progress in the Welfare Benefits system.
If you receive any of the following benefits:
Working Tax Credit
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit
Any working age benefits (e.g. JSA, ESA, ...)
DLA.."
Perhaps he would like to share with us what HIS views on the above are
Nick Noble
28-Feb-12, 13:05
No, the LibDem candidate for Thurso put up a notice about a meeting to provide advice to people that will be affected by the welfare changes that are happening.
I am very happy to debate reasonably any issue pertaining to welfare reform.
No, the LibDem candidate for Thurso put up a notice about a meeting to provide advice to people that will be affected by the welfare changes that are happening.
And I thought there was a separate section for meetings "Forum: Chat Room Events And Meetings"
And your views on Welfare reform are?
I thought the name calling was very good for a prospective ConDem councillor....it was nearly on a par with Gordon Brown and "Who was that awful Bigot Woman" ......:eek:
It would be interesting to hear from a LibDem just why they voted in the Commons to make the vulnerable even more vulnerable, to make the sick even more sicker and to make the poor of this country even poorer!!!
Is it because these people are easier to target than the tax dodgers and the super rich?
I really think you now have to see LibDem as the "New Tory" party.
And now I will let them crack on and ruin our NHS which is their next act of cruelty, carry on your heartless butchers !!!
C3..............[disgust][disgust]
John Little
28-Feb-12, 14:27
I see that HSBC (alone) has today admitted paying just 192 of its staff over a million pounds each in the last year.
That's let me see now..... £192 million .
That would divide up into quite a few;
Working Tax Credit
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit
Any working age benefits (e.g. JSA, ESA, ...)
DLA.."
s
Would it not?
Ah but that's too simple. It's important that the wealth providers get their just reward.
Meantime I see that Barclays have said 'Sorry Guv' and agreed to cough up the £500 million that they dodged last year.
A few benefits in there too?.
Nick Noble
28-Feb-12, 14:41
Any change to the welfare benefits system that stops the lifestyle choice of living on out of work benefits is to be welcomed.
The squeezing of genuine benefits claimants to appease the right wing tories is total anathema to me. I am not an MP, and have no vote on legislation. I do not support some of the changes to benefits that have been made. How corrie dare lecture me about benefits having seen so many posts castigating anyone in receipt of benefits as "scroungers" I do not know.
The point that seems to have been missed in these posts is that I am simply passing on information to those affected by these changes about a meeting that has been organised by the Highland Council Tenant Participation Officer to try and offer some accurate information about these changes and how it will affect people.
Turning such a post into some sort of slanging match really does a totall dis-service to anyone so affected.
So to repeat:
want to know how benefits changes might affect you?
There are massive changes in progress in the Welfare Benefits system.
If you receive any of the following benefits:
Working Tax Credit
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit
Any working age benefits (e.g. JSA, ESA, ...)
DLA
Then these changes could affect you.
If you want to hear more come along and bring a friend:
Tuesday 28th February
7:00pm to 8:00pm
in the
Ormlie Centre
This event is organised by the Highland Council Tenant Participation Officer, Lorna Simpson, if you are unable to attend the meeting you can contact Lorna on 01955 607707 or
email to lorna.simpson@highland.gov.uk
tonkatojo
28-Feb-12, 14:56
Any change to the welfare benefits system that stops the lifestyle choice of living on out of work benefits is to be welcomed.
The squeezing of genuine benefits claimants to appease the right wing tories is total anathema to me. I am not an MP, and have no vote on legislation. I do not support some of the changes to benefits that have been made. How corrie dare lecture me about benefits having seen so many posts castigating anyone in receipt of benefits as "scroungers" I do not know.
The point that seems to have been missed in these posts is that I am simply passing on information to those affected by these changes about a meeting that has been organised by the Highland Council Tenant Participation Officer to try and offer some accurate information about these changes and how it will affect people.
Turning such a post into some sort of slanging match really does a totall dis-service to anyone so affected.
So to repeat:
want to know how benefits changes might affect you?
There are massive changes in progress in the Welfare Benefits system.
If you receive any of the following benefits:
Working Tax Credit
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit
Any working age benefits (e.g. JSA, ESA, ...)
DLA
Then these changes could affect you.
If you want to hear more come along and bring a friend:
Tuesday 28th February
7:00pm to 8:00pm
in the
Ormlie Centre
This event is organised by the Highland Council Tenant Participation Officer, Lorna Simpson, if you are unable to attend the meeting you can contact Lorna on 01955 607707 or
email to lorna.simpson@highland.gov.uk
I think you view most on here as naive in that most are well aware you are buttering people up to attempt to be voted into the libdem camp. I have previously said a grave mistake joining that lot. Corrie says a lot of what he sees going on and quite frankly he perseve's the libdem with the contempt they deserve with the multi faced pre election pledges and the likes with the biggest being the NHS coming up lets hope the old libdems have the guts to shunt the bill into the bin as Clegg is looking after his position and pension and will not look out for the voters that were misguided in putting him there.
How corrie dare lecture me about benefits having seen so many posts castigating anyone in receipt of benefits as "scroungers" I do not know.
That is the problem though Nick, instead of the Govt weeding out the scroungers and cheats they would sooner make everyone suffer, genuine or not!!!
I also find it ironic that a member of the Libdems, the party that joined forces with the Tories to get these reforms through is advertising a meeting to tell people how it is going to affect them!!!!!
It's like knocking someone down and then kicking them afterwards !!!
C3................[disgust][disgust]
Nick Noble
28-Feb-12, 15:07
As I have said previously I am willing to debate any substantive point anyone wishes to challenge me on, preferably with real people who are prepared to put their name to their opinions. With the honourable exception of John Little all the attacks on here are from anonymous internet usernames. It really says more about your lack of honesty and conviction that it does about my support for a party that has already achieved much as part of a coalition at a very difficult economic time.
Nick Noble
28-Feb-12, 15:10
snip
I also find it ironic that a member of the Libdems, the party that joined forces with the Tories to get these reforms through is advertising a meeting to tell people how it is going to affect them!!!!!
It's like knocking someone down and then kicking them afterwards !!!
C3................[disgust][disgust]
But in this instance all I am doing is advertising the meeting to try and ensure that the vulnerable know what changes are happening, and how they will be impacted.
Your initial intervention has done nothing to help those individuals, and nothing to hurt me.
Sometimes attack is not the best course of action.
Again I say I am more than happy to discuss any substantve point you or anyone else wishes to debate.
John Little
28-Feb-12, 15:17
Ah but John Little is not challenging you in person.
John Little thinks that you, like so many other principled and honest Lib Dems, have been wrong footed by your leadership who have fooled themselves into thinking that they can cut cards with the Devil.
In truth there can be no compromise with Toryism
Though there can be with Conservatism.
But the Tories are in the saddle.
I refer you to George Monbiot in today' Guardian;
"Extending the project begun by Tony Blair, Cameron is creating an economy in which much of the private sector depends on state contracts, and in which the government's core responsibility is to provide them. If this requires the destruction of effective public healthcare and reliable state education, it is of no concern to an economic class that uses neither."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/27/britain-rebuilt-in-aid-corporate-power
In assisting to play off Cameron's agenda against some palliative reforms, Mr Clegg has sold the pass.
The real issue here is not how the changes will affect you, but the ideology that is driving it, and the sort of society we wish to become.
It seems that we are to remain a form of Liberal Democracy- but not a social democracy.
that it does about my support for a party that has already achieved much as part of a coalition at a very difficult economic time.
"Already achieved much"???
The LibDem's and their bedmate lovers have achieved absolutely nothing in the time they have been in office.
We expect the Tories to kick the lowest in society but the LibDems? I would never have thought I would see the day when there is no difference whatsoever between the two parties. And to think I used to vote for them year in year out in the hope that they may one day change things in our country. Well now they have had a chance to make a difference and guess what? There is no difference at all except the LibDems have been wolves in sheep's clothing all this time.
Still, Cleggy and Co won't be bothered, after their 5 minutes of fame, he and the likes of Alexander will be walking away with £millions while the rest of us are left wondering if we can keep warm next winter.
C3...................[disgust]
"..With the honourable exception of John Little all the attacks on here are from anonymous internet usernames. It really says more about your lack of honesty and conviction that it does about my support for a party that has already achieved much as part of a coalition at a very difficult economic time.."
So you are now saying that the 99% of the Caithness Orgers who prefer not to use their real names on a public forum are "lacking in honesty and conviction" Don't you mean 99% of the spineless LibDem politicians who are following Clegg to self destruction
Incidentally, when you made your vitriolic postings about the death of Amy Winehouse (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?151120-Aimie-Whinehouse-dead&highlight=winehouse), why did you not use your real name?
John Little
28-Feb-12, 18:16
That's a tad below the belt Anfield. There is no doubt that the Lib Dems have managed to dilute some of Cameron and Osborne's excesses;
http://www.mikehancock.co.uk/uploads/PDFs/LIBDEMACHIEVEMENTS.pdf
The point however is that it's nowhere near enough as a price for keeping them, in power. They could pull the plug at any time and bring this ordure to a swift end. If they keep this coalition going then they should be DEMANDING more.
I do not think that attacking individual members of the Lib Dems is fruitful because I think that most of them are the tail following where the head goes - as is the case with all political parties of whatever colour. There are cracks in the Lib Dem party and the embarrassment of some of them is palpable.
I have never ever been a Lib Dem member but 30 years ago I was a card carrying Liberal and I know fine how many of them must be smarting under what is happening. In the end I think that Clegg and co will be ditched. If they are not then the Lib Dems are finished.
As it is going on, I wonder how long it will be before the Liberal Party is re-established as an independent entity because what is going on is not what Liberalism is about. I never really cottoned on to what the Social Democrats were about anyway.
Org pseudonyms are another thread surely?
toodiemac
28-Feb-12, 18:30
So you are now saying that the 99% of the Caithness Orgers who prefer not to use their real names on a public forum are "lacking in honesty and conviction" Don't you mean 99% of the spineless LibDem politicians who are following Clegg to self destruction
Incidentally, when you made your vitriolic postings about the death of Amy Winehouse (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?151120-Aimie-Whinehouse-dead&highlight=winehouse), why did you not use your real name?
Way off topic I guess, to mention the Winehouse thread... BUT...
I don't often post on here but I must admit that after that Winehouse thread, every time I see a posting from NickNoble my mind just snaps back to when he said he would happily tell the parents of a deceased person (i.e. their child) that their child was a waste of space, that he could not be MORE happy that their child had DIED. All because the "child" (and obviously Amy W was an adult but hey, she will always be their child, right?) was addicted to a chemical substance. She wasn't a murderer, she wasn't a paedophile - she had an addiction. Nick's comments chilled me to the bone. At first I assumed that he didn't have children (but I think I may have been wrong) which makes it even more awful. It actually scares me - such a lack of basic human empathy, lack of human connection. Chilling, very strange, very chilling.
Anyway, I had hoped that somebody running for councillor would be able to relate to the public - not just the public he "approves of".
Certainly don't mean to hurt anybody by posting this, don't mean to hurt NickNoble, but I'm wondering if he knows how his abhorrent comments may have stuck in people's minds. I'm wondering if he actually posted that really nasty stuff without thinking and now regrets it?
We don't need anyone telling us how the changes will affect us we will see how the changes will affect us when suicide rates go through the roof and we are left wondering how to put food on the table!
If you had any cahoonas Mr. Noble you would be focusing on how Highland Council is killing off small business by trying to suck every penny outa them! You would also do well to try and put a stop to council tax and replace it with a fairer income based tax like the lying lib Dems promised! but no that would mean the councillors wouldn't get so much of a cushy pension and we can't have that...can we!!!
Typically we will be promised the earth until the votes are in and then it's back to dirty busness as usuall.
Maybe you would like to dicuss this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-a4e-and-a-200m-backtowork-scandal-7440966.html "Ms Harrison announced last Friday she was stepping down due to the intense "media focus", which began when it was revealed that she had paid herself a dividend of £8.6m last year, despite the failure of A4e to meet targets on finding jobs for the unemployed. "
No wonder the country is in the state it is in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...oh and another thing over £8 million for cushy new council offices in Wick which looks so out of place and domineering....absolutely disgusting! when so many in the Highlands are suffering financially according to Citizens advice Bureau! That money along with all the other money wasted by our overlords could be better spent on something that benefits the most needy in our county.
What we need is an occupy Market Square!
Things are so bad in the UK that even these people want to leave !!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17183171
And yet in October Cameron says we should all shop illegals to get our borders back......Well Dave, they are there in those shacks and they want to leave but cant!!! How stupid is that?
But that doesn't matter as much as cutting benefits to those that need it the most does it???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15235649
C3..............:eek:[disgust]
Any change to the welfare benefits system that stops the lifestyle choice of living on out of work benefits is to be welcomed.
Until such a day that there is full employment (never), I see no problem with living on out of work benefits as a lifestyle choice...
Better the few jobs that are available go to those who are desperately unhappy about life on benefits & those that are happy to be on benefits stay on benefits.
For example: Imagine that you become unemployed, you're desperate for a job, a suitable vacancy comes up, you apply for it, you don't get the job, it went to someone else who didn't really want it & only applied for it to keep the broo off their back.... Wouldn't that piss you off?
Or even worse: The vacancy never even came up at all since they managed to get some slave labour in to do it for nothing thanks to a Government scheme.
One more thing...
The one thing that all politicians know (or should know if they don't) but would never admit to is the fact that a strong healthy flexible economy is reliant on the fact that there will always be a certain level of unemployment (unless you want to go down the communism route). Without unemployment the economy would soon stagnate & spiral downwards until a happy medium between employment/unemployment is once again achieved. All that should be up for discussion is where that medium should be & recognition given to the fact that the unemployed are a valuable part of the economy & treated a bit more fairly & shown the respect they deserve.
John Little
28-Feb-12, 21:02
Point of information Mr Chairman...
http://www.consent.me.uk/calculator/
(http://www.consent.me.uk/calculator/)“There is plenty of wealth in this country to provide for us all and to spare. What is wanted is fairer distribution”.
D (http://www.consent.me.uk/calculator/)avid Lloyd George (1906)
Note please - not a socialist but a Liberal...
Oh... & yet another point...
Governments like to help a flagging economy by injecting more money into it. Only problem is they inject it in the wrong places for maximum benefit....
The poorer people are the more likely they are to circulate that money back into the wider economy, conversely the richer a person the more likely they are to just sit on it...
You can't get much poorer than the unemployed so increasing benefits is by far the best way to inject cash into the economy (& most notably the local economy)...
I think that Nick was a little naive in posting his policital intentions on this forum. That doesn't excuse the rude and arrogant replies he has received in the interim.
I trust you all found time to voice your opinions tonight. Is anyone able or of a mind to sum up the meeting?
Is anyone able or of a mind to sum up the meeting?
http://i.imgur.com/juJiP.png
mentallywinnie
29-Feb-12, 00:29
I just wanted to point something out on the other post re the meeting about this but the post is locked.....had a leaflet shoved through my front door on Monday sometime saying about this meeting and what sort of benefits would be talked about....one problem NOWHERE did it mention where it was nor did it have a number I could call to find out anything!!!!???
Just wonder how many people found out where it was!!??!!
I think that Nick was a little naive in posting his policital intentions on this forum. That doesn't excuse the rude and arrogant replies he has received in the interim.
I trust you all found time to voice your opinions tonight. Is anyone able or of a mind to sum up the meeting?
I have just re-read all the posts on this thread Moira and cannot see one rude posting. The rudeness and arrogance started in the other original thread which was locked and the offending posts (from Nick) were deleted.
If you are going to be a Politician you have to develop a tough skin and expect differences of opinions and also receive personal insults at some stage of your career.
Under the circumstances I think the posters on this thread have been very kind to Nick!!!
I couldn't make the meeting tonight but if I were a betting Man I would say that no one is going to be better off and anyone on any kind of benefit will be worse off and will struggle even harder than they do now!!!
C3................;)
I just wanted to point something out on the other post re the meeting about this but the post is locked.....had a leaflet shoved through my front door on Monday sometime saying about this meeting and what sort of benefits would be talked about....one problem NOWHERE did it mention where it was nor did it have a number I could call to find out anything!!!!???
Just wonder how many people found out where it was!!??!!
This is the new ConLibDem tactic. Announce something and then stifle any debate on it.
Just like the meeting that Cameron & Lansley had last week about NHS privatisation, sorry "reforms". Host the meeting and then do not invite the people who will be most affected by it e.g Health Care professionals
John Little
29-Feb-12, 10:45
Benjamin Disraeli described Britain as being a divided country, in reality being; "Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets: the rich and the poor."
The solution to this, for him, was “Tory Democracy” where his party would work towards a greater unity within the nation by expanding Democracy to let more people have a say in government.
The great flaw in this is that it does not work. Government, and power, is done, as it is always done, through elites. Unless you have the jargon, the education, the knowledge, even the money, then the ordinary Joe or Josephine will flounder about if put in power.
An elite rule.
But Tory Democracy is at least nicer than proper Toryism or as we see it in its modern form, Thatcherism. To Thatcherites a divided society is the natural state of affairs- indeed there is no such thing as society. All that matters is the individual and how he or she relates to what really governs human affairs. What really governs human affairs is the market. Even JM Keynes thought this, seeing monopolies as the greatest enemy of the human race. Cameron and Osborne stand revealed as Thatcherites and they have absolutely nothing in common with what Liberalism stands for.
Liberalism is a broad church, but as far as the basic line goes, Liberals do believe in society, but they also see that it is unequal and that there is unfairness in it. You tackle these inequalities and unfairnesses by qualified intervention, but that must be minimal because the liberty of the individual must be preserved through the rule of law where all must be equal.
So you do not take control of the market as Socialists did – you regulate it to control its worst excesses.
You bring a more equal society through changing the law.
But above all you do not allow one group in society to benefit to the detriment of another.
And it is on this fundamental tenet of Liberalism where Mr Clegg has diverged from Liberalism.
Whatever he is doing, it is not Liberalism – and the changes to benefits at one end of the scale, whilst staying in a government which tolerates bankers’ bonuses, 20% VAT and massive profits to monopolies are nothing to do with Liberal philosophy. If Clegg were a Liberal then he could not abide to work with a government prepared to tolerate such inequalities.
I am particularly angry with him because of what is about to happen to my pension.
The Liberal Party was dissolved in 1988 and most joined with the SDP to form the Liberal Democrats.
There is a small Liberal Party apparently which still exists and which did not accept the merger.
Mr Clegg is not a Liberal.
He is a Liberal Democrat.
I do not have the faintest idea what their ideology is, what their tenets are. If they have any. From where I stand they look more and more, with each passing day, like rank opportunists.
Caithness has been Liberal homeland for decades so should know the answer to this;
I would be very grateful if someone could explain to me, soberly and politely what the underlying philosophy of the Liberal Democrats is.
No -I am not being ironic - I do really want to know.
tonkatojo
29-Feb-12, 11:20
This is not really on topic but shows the mind of yet another MP who is there for the cash and not for the good of the country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17202387
I think that Nick was a little naive in posting his policital intentions on this forum.
Surely it is better for would be politicians to let us know what their intentions are in advance, rather than them spring them on us when they have been elected
"..I am particularly angry with him because of what is about to happen to my pension.
The Liberal Party was dissolved in 1988 and most joined with the SDP to form the Liberal Democrats.
There is a small Liberal Party apparently which still exists and which did not accept the merger.
Mr Clegg is not a Liberal.
He is a Liberal Democrat.
I do not have the faintest idea what their ideology is, what their tenets are. If they have any. From where I stand they look more and more, with each passing day, like rank opportunists.
Caithness has been Liberal homeland for decades so should know the answer to this;
I would be very grateful if someone could explain to me, soberly and politely what the underlying philosophy of the Liberal Democrats is.
No -I am not being ironic - I do really want to know.. "
Their (LibDem) manifesto (http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx) makes interesting reading, and the summaries of their pledges include;
"..To boost the economy and create jobs for those who need them, we will begin our term of office with a one-year economic stimulus and job creation package. To sustain jobs and growth for the long term, we will set up an Infrastructure Bank to direct private finance to essential projects such as new rail services and green energy, building the environmentally sustainable economy that is needed for the long term. And to ensure that the economy is never again destabilised by high-risk financial industries, we will break up the banks and build up diverse local and regional sources of business finance.
We set out in this manifesto a clear plan to bring the budget back under control, being honest about the tough choices we need to take. We will cut taxes for millions of working people and pensioners, paid for by making sure that the very wealthy pay their fair share and that polluting air travel is properly taxed. We will boost the state pension by immediately restoring the link with earnings growth.
We will provide a fair start for all children by giving schools the extra money they need to cut class sizes and provide additional one-to-one teaching, and by setting schools free to give all children the best possible education. We will scrap unfair university tuition fees so everyone has the chance to get a degree, regardless of their parents' income. We will help the NHS work better with the money it has by using the savings we have found to protect front-line services, such as cancer treatment, mental health care, maternity services, dementia care and preventive medicine.
Liberal Democrats will improve life for your family. On top of our tax cuts to put £700 in the pockets of millions of low and middle-income earners, we will allow mums and dads to share parental leave between them so they can arrange family life in the way that suits them best. We will provide better support for children at risk and young adults to help them thrive. We will restore the earnings link for pensions, and offer respite breaks for carers. And we will protect families from unfair bills.
Liberal Democrats will work through the European Union to deliver a global deal on climate change. We will transform the armed forces, meeting the nation's obligations under the military covenant, and conducting a full defence review to ensure they are equipped for modern threats. We will push for better global financial regulation. We will strive for global nuclear disarmament, showing leadership by committing not to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system on a like-for-like basis. We will meet the UK's obligations to the developing world by committing to spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid. And we will put Britain at the heart of Europe, to ensure we use our influence to achieve prosperity, security and opportunity for Britain.
Liberal Democrats will put thousands more police on the beat and make them work more effectively to cut crime. We value Britain's open, welcoming character, and will protect it by changing the immigration system to make it fi rm and fair so that people can once again put their faith in it. We will invest in public transport and cut rail fares, as well as providing more affordable homes and protecting people from unfair repossessions. We will keep postoffices open, and will protect and restore the natural environment.
Liberal Democrats will do things differently, because we believe that power should be in the hands of people, not politicians. We will give people a real say in who governs the country by introducing fair votes. We will stop big donations and give people the power to sack corrupt MPs. We will increase the powers of the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament. We will cut back central government and all the stifl ing targets that it sets and make sure local taxes are spent locally. And we will introduce a Freedom Bill to restore the civil liberties that are so precious to the British character.."
So John your pension is safe in their hands, that is when Clegg finally gets around to discussing with Cameron that it is maybe time to take on board some of the pledges which the Lib Dems made.
I would not hold my breath though....
Nick Noble
29-Feb-12, 11:43
I just wanted to point something out on the other post re the meeting about this but the post is locked.....had a leaflet shoved through my front door on Monday sometime saying about this meeting and what sort of benefits would be talked about....one problem NOWHERE did it mention where it was nor did it have a number I could call to find out anything!!!!???
Just wonder how many people found out where it was!!??!!
What part of Thurso do you stay in?
The leaflets that were put round by Lorna Simpson in the High Ormlie are certainly included all those details.
I know there were three meetings overall yesterday, one for the Young Mums group, one hosted by Pentland Housing, and one at 7:00 pm at the Ormlie Centre. Pentland as far as I am aware leafleted their own estate, but I have not seen a copy of their leaflet.
lindsaymcc
29-Feb-12, 11:44
Regarding the meeting last night, there were 2.
One was at the Ormlie Centre at 7pm, the other at the Pentland Housing Association at 4:30pm.
The meeting really didnt tell you much more than has been trawled over in the press. The main focus was on the changes to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, mainly for those of working age.
Briefly mentioned, where the changes over to Universal Credit, and changing DLA to PIP.
Most of the changes will not be taking effect until 2013, and the Highland Council representative has said they will be doing another round of meetings in about 6 months time when more solid details are known, and also at some point after Easter, doing the same presentation on the Wick side, but rather than put out notices to tenants, will advertise in the paper, so that all interested parties can attend.
If anyone wants more specifics, then ask and I will do my best to answer, based on the meeting I attended yesterday.
lindsaymcc
29-Feb-12, 11:46
The Pentland Housing leaflet only specified a time, but I assumed it was at the offices as no other location was mentioned. It is obvious the leaflet was from PHA as it is their trademark cream stationary and has their red franking stamp.
John Little
29-Feb-12, 12:20
Anfield - thank you for that. I too have read the manifesto.
It's the underpinning ideology I don't get.
Clegg, like the Liberal leaders before him, has a book as his symbol of office.
It's JS Mill's 'On Liberty'.
I do not think he's read it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely if you get a coalition of 2 or more parties, you don't get anyone's manifesto.
John Little
29-Feb-12, 14:15
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely if you get a coalition of 2 or more parties, you don't get anyone's manifesto.
That's the theory.
But we seem to be getting someone else's ideology in sharp doses.
weezer 316
29-Feb-12, 14:42
Corrie = the worlds biggest hypocrite. Dont expect him to change now though!
Tax rises for us lot at the bottom anyone? Or are we all gonna keep on being scroungers and moaning about the govt.
John Little
29-Feb-12, 15:02
Weezie! You're back!!
We have our tax rises according to Channel 4 news last night.
20% VAT
Tax on Fuel and energy
Change from RPI to CPI on Pensions
Cuts in benefits
Rises in Council Tax
All unavoidable and applied to all regardless of ability to pay.
Clegg, like the Liberal leaders before him, has a book as his symbol of office.
It's JS Mill's 'On Liberty'.
I do not think he's read it.
Unless it can be condensed into 140 characters, and an advisor has "tweeted" it to him then I would say that is very unlikely that he has read it
Corrie = the worlds biggest hypocrite. Dont expect him to change now though!
Tax rises for us lot at the bottom anyone? Or are we all gonna keep on being scroungers and moaning about the govt.
I heard that Dave's poodle was back in town, welcome back weezie lad!!!
Btw, Laddie, when you have paid as much in taxes as I have then come back on the thread and call me a scrounger, hypocrite and a Gov't moaner (1st class Hons)!!!
In the meantime, keep working hard until you are 70 and keep paying those taxes so the likes of myself can live our lives in luxury!!!
C3.............:roll:;);)
John Little
29-Feb-12, 16:30
Unless it can be condensed into 140 characters, and an advisor has "tweeted" it to him then I would say that is very unlikely that he has read it
Well he should blinking well read what it says about avoiding 'the Tyranny of the Majority'.
I read it more years ago than I care to remember but that bit sticks in my head.
He may be in a government with a majority cobbled together for convenience but he should remember who they are. The people who voted for him voted for Social Democracy, not Tory Democracy.
Well he should blinking well read what it says about avoiding 'the Tyranny of the Majority'.
I read it more years ago than I care to remember but that bit sticks in my head.
He may be in a government with a majority cobbled together for convenience but he should remember who they are. The people who voted for him voted for Social Democracy, not Tory Democracy.
Here is the passage John is referring to;
"..Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.."
(John Stuart Mills - On Liberty)
This was written nearly two hundred years ago and it is apt now as when Mills first wrote it.
John Little
29-Feb-12, 17:49
True.
And in this case we seem to have a political collective whose view is that the good of business, economy, the so called 'wealth creators' is above that of general society; and in this case is squeezing individual independence by depriving individuals of the means of maintaining their liberty. By liberty I mean the benchmark of reasonable living standards that we have won so hard over the last 200 years. The liberty that allows the leisure to think and act as a free member of a free society, and not to be a wage slave.
Benefit scroungers aside, we have among the lowest benefit levels in Europe, and a growing gap between haves and have nots.
Mill might not have approved - but I doubt that Disraeli would have either.
I have just re-read all the posts on this thread Moira and cannot see one rude posting. The rudeness and arrogance started in the other original thread which was locked and the offending posts (from Nick) were deleted.......
C3................;)
I can see your point Corrie 3 so thanks for challenging my opinion. I was actually thinking of other threads too, not just this one but I didn't make this clear. I also accept that my idea of rudeness & arrogance may differ from other posters on this forum.
Copied from Doanalsin's diary!!!
This is what Doanalsin wrote and it is in the Groat as well I believe!!!
"HOMELESSNESS could rise significantly in Caithness if housing benefit claimants are penalised for living in larger properties than they require. With a lack of one-bedroom accommodation available in the county, fears are growing, that people may be forced onto the streets with nowhere to go. The UK government is set to introduce a new welfare reform bill, next year, which will see tougher regulations on under-capacity. If housing benefit claimants are judged to be living in a house which has more bedrooms than they use, their benefit will be reduced. The move could result in them not being able to afford to stay in their houses."
As I read it, if someone who lives in a 2 bed house and cant find a 1 bed house to live in their benefits will be cut!!! And if their benefits are cut they could end up homeless! Is that how others read this or is it just me?
So well done the ConDems, pick on the most vulnerable like you have always done! I do think that making someone homeless just because they live in a 2 bed house is OTT even for the ConDems!!!
I am sorry Nick, but if anyone up here votes for the Tories or the LibDems in the Elections then they need their head looking at!!!
C3...........Voting for the Party that cares about Scotland and her people. .....;)
This is from the DWP Equality Impact Assessment October 2011
"The majority of affected claimants (approximately 78%) are under-occupying their accommodation by just one bedroom. On average, these claimants will have their Housing Benefit reduced by £11 per week in 2013/14. Those claimants who have a greater number of excess bedrooms will experience larger average deductions from their Housing Benefit entitlement."
http://i.imgur.com/LCmNr.jpg
Copied from Doanalsin's diary!!!
This is what Doanalsin wrote and it is in the Groat as well I believe!!!
"HOMELESSNESS could rise significantly in Caithness if housing benefit claimants are penalised for living in larger properties than they require. With a lack of one-bedroom accommodation available in the county, fears are growing, that people may be forced onto the streets with nowhere to go. The UK government is set to introduce a new welfare reform bill, next year, which will see tougher regulations on under-capacity. If housing benefit claimants are judged to be living in a house which has more bedrooms than they use, their benefit will be reduced. The move could result in them not being able to afford to stay in their houses."
As I read it, if someone who lives in a 2 bed house and cant find a 1 bed house to live in their benefits will be cut!!! And if their benefits are cut they could end up homeless! Is that how others read this or is it just me?
So well done the ConDems, pick on the most vulnerable like you have always done! I do think that making someone homeless just because they live in a 2 bed house is OTT even for the ConDems!!!
I'm not a supporter of tories, far from it actually. But it is commonsense if someone who lives in a 2 bedroomed building which they can ill afford they should be given enough incentive to move to a one bedroom accomodation.
I'm not a supporter of tories, far from it actually. But it is commonsense if someone who lives in a 2 bedroomed building which they can ill afford they should be given enough incentive to move to a one bedroom accomodation.
You missed the point Rheggy...............There is a shortage of 1 bed places in the far North!!!! Where are these people to go?
C3.................:eek:
You missed the point Rheggy...............There is a shortage of 1 bed places in the far North!!!! Where are these people to go?
C3.................:eek:
Well if you have a shortage of one bedroomed properties under a system that incentives someone to go to properties that best suits them in terms of capacity then you have a shortage of properties in general that doesn't match demographic demands. It is not the system but the spread of property options that is at fault.
John Little
02-Mar-12, 20:43
Is there a shortage of properties in Thurso?
I live a 2 bedroom comfortable accommodation, here in Auld Reekie, I live well, on my beeg Civil Service pension + my state one. I do not get or claim any kind of benefits, These proposed changes do not affect me in any way. Roll on the Neverendum!!!
I dont know for sure but this looks like a ConDem move designed for London and the big cities! What they want is for people to downsize properties and if they dont their benefits will be cut! Fine, if you live in London and are single living in a 2 bed place and you have a bed-sit to go into but up here thats not an option as Highland Council state there is a shortage of 1 bed places!!!
Perhaps Nick can come along and clear this up for us when he has done listening to Nick Cleggs dreams and promises in Inverness!!
C3..............:eek:
I live a 2 bedroom comfortable accommodation, here in Auld Reekie, I live well, on my beeg Civil Service pension + my state one. I do not get or claim any kind of benefits, These proposed changes do not affect me in any way. Roll on the Neverendum!!!
Aren't you the lucky one Golach, if everyone were in your position there wouldn't be a problem would there?
C3...........[disgust][disgust]
tonkatojo
02-Mar-12, 21:16
Aren't you the lucky one Golach, if everyone were in your position there wouldn't be a problem would there?
C3...........[disgust][disgust]
Give them time , before we know it all in non owned accommodation will be included in this fiasco, to accommodate asylum seekers and large or getting larger families working or not as it will be deemed if you don't need it you will lose/give it up, time living in that place with good neighbours or such will be no excuse. The elderly are a prime target, no doubt the government will say it is good for them so get over it. Don't forget they gave themselves a guaranteed 5 years to do at will whatever.
John Little
02-Mar-12, 21:19
Nah - you must rent out your spare room to......... to make up the difference.
Aren't you the lucky one Golach, if everyone were in your position there wouldn't be a problem would there?C3...........[disgust][disgust]
Tough , I am inboard jack, I am looking after #1
billy5000
03-Mar-12, 02:04
I dont vote and probably never will!!
so far in my 35yrs i have seen NO party display what id call MORALS and truth and convictions!
all i see from the main handfull of leading party names is lies and pocket filling!
We are broke! but we can afford aid to the sum of 27 million to places like argentina! (who hate us lets not forget)and india who insult our aid as peanuts!
but we still hand over these LARGE sums of money because it makes our country look BIG and generous, dispite being apparently BROKE! and in an effort to keep this bravado up we are slashing funding in all areas,from the nhs to decent honest benefit claimants(not the layabouts who could be weeded out given a decent system! and not cut throat temp doctors that dont even have your file and basically screw you !
The last attempt was temp doctors called in to do medical assessments and failing you straight out!but appeal and you were given your old entitlement back!
this was a way of trying(badly)to weed out LAZY claiments but again attacked honest needy and deserving people!
so no i wont vote and probably never will untill one of the partys can stop playing ,(who can filter the highest amount from the public into his own pocket)and cut aid and direct it back into a BAD economy(OURS).....
leaches and parasites with NOTHING to offer but organised and legal theft for their own ends and most of them will do what blair did and leave the country and live a sunny FAT life of the costa dell smug!
if anywhere needs cuts its the house of commons and all the pocket fillers who are too used to thier FAT upbringing at eton.
its time for a totally new system with REAL human beings!
wether you vote liddem/labour your still being blinded by LIES and misselling!(if im wrong then tell me which promise has been kept and has it affected the public in a postive way?
because it certainly isnt affecting the economy very much but i guess it has really as we can hand over MILLIONS to people that hate or dont need us !
maybe its a tax break thing within the euro factions!?dont know dont care and if i could leave i would but our honest goverment likes to keep the poor in the gutter wether you work or not!
they have only just started to raise wages to meet inflation but thats more the employer than goverment relief and with petrol prices(because of the grubbyment)people that want to work cannot afford to work, or they can go hungry! but hey its not thier problem,thier RICH! and we are peasants!
Billy I agree 100% word for word with your post. It's time people woke up to what is actually going on. The ship is sinking and the politicians, councillors et al are grabbing up all the wealth in this country so when the you know what hits the fan they will be financially sound while the rest of us are murdering each other for a loaf of bread!
The situation is A LOT worse than most really percieve, but our trusty politicians won't tell us that.
They fairly clamped down on the looting that went on during the recent riots but people like Emma Harris can fill her pockets with £8.6 million for her yearly "dividend" while her company that is suppose to be working towards putting people back into work (workfare!) are done for fraud AGAIN!
We saw the likes of Jackie Smith and Hazel Blears et al getting off with major fraud and tax evasion but if joe or jane bloggs on jobseekers makes a fly £20 or £30 on the side to repair the fridge or feed the kids then they is demonised as a parasite or scrounger.
we are sleep walking into a complete disaster, I predict more riots will occur, only a lot worse, this country has been ruined. We are ALL in debt. as is our children and our childrens children but that doesn't concern this governmnet too much as we are all useless eaters in their eyes.
They want us to work longer for less money and charge us more for the privilage!
secrets in symmetry
03-Mar-12, 15:04
Until such a day that there is full employment (never), I see no problem with living on out of work benefits as a lifestyle choice...
Better the few jobs that are available go to those who are desperately unhappy about life on benefits & those that are happy to be on benefits stay on benefits.
For example: Imagine that you become unemployed, you're desperate for a job, a suitable vacancy comes up, you apply for it, you don't get the job, it went to someone else who didn't really want it & only applied for it to keep the broo off their back.... Wouldn't that piss you off?
Or even worse: The vacancy never even came up at all since they managed to get some slave labour in to do it for nothing thanks to a Government scheme.
One more thing...
The one thing that all politicians know (or should know if they don't) but would never admit to is the fact that a strong healthy flexible economy is reliant on the fact that there will always be a certain level of unemployment (unless you want to go down the communism route). Without unemployment the economy would soon stagnate & spiral downwards until a happy medium between employment/unemployment is once again achieved. All that should be up for discussion is where that medium should be & recognition given to the fact that the unemployed are a valuable part of the economy & treated a bit more fairly & shown the respect they deserve.
Oh... & yet another point...
Governments like to help a flagging economy by injecting more money into it. Only problem is they inject it in the wrong places for maximum benefit....
The poorer people are the more likely they are to circulate that money back into the wider economy, conversely the richer a person the more likely they are to just sit on it...
You can't get much poorer than the unemployed so increasing benefits is by far the best way to inject cash into the economy (& most notably the local economy)...I like it - more respect and more money for the unemployed because they are a valuable part of the economy, and they are the ones that will improve it most if they get given more money!
Nice try! :cool:
This has to be repeated I think http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104539/Emma-Harrison-4-staff-David-Camerons-work-tsar-arrested-fraud-inquiry.html "Four people have been arrested in the fraud investigation surrounding David Cameron’s ‘back to work’ tsar Emma Harrison.
Officers carried out dawn raids on the homes of former staff of her employment agency A4e, which receives tens of millions every year in Government contracts.
The two men and two women were questioned on suspicion of cheating taxpayers."
...but once again Emma will come out of this smelling of roses with her stolen money safely tucked away! The whole country has been taken over by criminals!
John Little
03-Mar-12, 17:09
The idea of getting cash into the pockets of the unemployed is one that is tried and tested. When Roosevelt wanted to increase consumer demand at the beginning of the New Deal he wanted to spend government money on putting the unemployed to work doing anything that would put money in their pockets - sweeping leaves, snow, digging ditches etc. When one of his advisers, Harry Hopkins protested at a waste of government money which he would rather see put into something more lasting in the long run, Roosevelt replied 'People don't eat in the long run - they eat every day.'
It worked...
secrets in symmetry
03-Mar-12, 19:59
My point was that giving spades of money to the unemployed is inconsistent with a lean keen army of unemployed ready to step into the shoes of the unemployed when their efficiency falters.
I actually wrote a couple of sentences saying that a quick fix along those lines might do some good in the short term, but I deleted them because they addressed only one of alrock's posts.
Here's a good way to calculate benefit levels that is totally fair & panders to the market forces....
Say... For example... Unemployment is at 3 million then benefit levels should be set so that 3 million people are happy to be on benefits.... If Unemployment is at 1 million then benefit levels should be set so that 1 million people are happy to be on benefits....
That way, everybody is happy, both employed & unemployed, & of course the lower unemployment is the less people you have to keep happy & the lower the level of benefit needs to be paid to keep them happy....
What better way to encourage the government to concentrate on job creation.
secrets in symmetry
03-Mar-12, 20:55
By your own argument, you can't have a situation in which everyone is happy to be unemployed, else the employed would get lazy because there's no-one to step in to fill their shoes when they're fired!
If you want an equally crazy scheme, how about we shoot all the (long term) unemployed and pay higher wages to everyone else? That would be cheaper and better for the economy in almost every respect. It would also create more jobs for undertakers, gravediggers, florists, ....
Yes... I will admit that in theory it might be a good idea but in practice it is virtually unworkable though it might be a good idea to have that as your target knowing that you will never actually reach it.
How about this idea then (figures plucked out of the ether for demonstration purposes only)....
The working population is 30,000,000
The Job seeking population is 3,000,000
The average working week is 40 hours
Using a simple bit of maths then by cutting the average working week to 36.37 hours so as to distribute the working hours more fairly then unemployment would be eradicated, wealth would be shared a bit more fairly & those currently in employment would have to work less hours increasing morale..
By your own argument, you can't have a situation in which everyone is happy to be unemployed, else the employed would get lazy because there's no-one to step in to fill their shoes when they're fired!
If you want an equally crazy scheme, how about we shoot all the (long term) unemployed and pay higher wages to everyone else? That would be cheaper and better for the economy in almost every respect. It would also create more jobs for undertakers, gravediggers, florists, ....
Ahem...........
billy5000
04-Mar-12, 04:39
what some people dont realise or dont care! is that not everyone currently, or on long term unemployed are not happy being so...unemployed
but some people dont have the choice as thier situation, be it terminally ill or disabled makes everyday work impossible! and this has a knock on effect with thier moral!
but a fair percentage of people dont stop to think about this, and those that are unable to work are demonised into the same bracket as the scroungers and they are targetted by the goverment in the same fashion!!
they have to move heaven and earth to prove (despite being classed as unable to work through ill health or disabled for how ever long in past claims)that they are eligable for thier benefits!!(which the medical assessments are designed to screw you )as even moving a finger these days makes you workable!.
if the goverment lowered working taxes and petrol prices then more people would find it viable to work as claiming benefits wouldnt be such an easy earner when they COULD earn more working! but since most can earn the same claiming (40hr week working)then why bother working!
its a simple math and it doesnt even mean lowering benefits!
lower tax across the board and more people would rather work than scrape the bottom of the barrel each week claiming and instead of trying to find money to feed the family...(claiming)they could work and maybe even have a holiday which most couldnt afford claiming!
its all about incentives and so far there is NON!
and cutting vital services and risking more riots so the goverment dont have to dip into their pockets to keep up the stupid and uneeded aid payouts is just playing with fire!!.
even more so saying we are a country in debt!(why is that i wonder)its not all down to benefits and id start by looking closer to thier own CLASS(bankers/mp`s/councils the list is endless and in the billions or trillions figure!!!
but its easier to target people that are already poor or easy as the police will help beat the peasants to the gutter under any law they deam usefull like terrorism!
this country is run by a mafia!but just greedier!
(which the medical assessments are designed to screw you )as even moving a finger these days makes you workable!.
Are you sure that's correct Billy?
I heard that the criteria used by the DWP "Doctors" these days is that as long as you are breathing you are capable of work!!!
C3............[disgust][disgust]
billy5000
05-Mar-12, 13:46
:)lol haha thats what i ment!!!
thanks for the correction...
as long as you are breathing you are capable of work!!!
C3............[disgust][disgust]
If you can breathe then you can get a job blowing up balloons...
If you can breathe then you can get a job blowing up balloons...
Or a Paramedic giving the kiss of life????
C3................[lol]
Or a Paramedic giving the kiss of life????
C3................[lol]
I thought health & safety these days have now ruled out the kiss of life.
I thought health & safety these days have now ruled out the kiss of life.
My Uncle has the best job in the world..................He is a programme seller at Coronations!!!
C3............:roll::roll:;)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.