Tagged: ConDem

George Osbourne – “The Plan Is Working, Scum”

> As noted elsewhere, ConDem posh boy George Osbourne gave a speech today, at Tilbury. It might have been nice if a few dockers had decided to heckle him, but as that doesn’t seem to have happened (perhaps no nasty rough types were allowed in), here’s a section of his speech, wherein he refers to his plans for those of us on benefits, with a few heckles added…

 

The culmination of this week that sees the biggest reduction of business and personal tax in two decades.

It’s only possible because your hard work is helping us fix the economy – and it is only part of our plan to create jobs.

> Oi, posh boy ! Was cutting all those public sector jobs in the North East also part of your plan to create jobs ? How did that work, then ?

For it’s no good creating jobs – if we’re also paying people to stay on welfare.

We inherited a welfare system that didn’t work

There was not enough help for those looking for a job – people were just parked on benefits.

> There was not enough jobs for those looking for a job. That was, and is, the real problem.

Frankly, there was not enough pressure to get a job – some people could just sign on and get almost as much money staying at home as going out to wo

That’s not fair to them – because they get trapped in poverty and their aspirations are squashed.

> Hang on, George… if people could get almost as much on benefits as they would working, how do they get trapped in poverty ? Is this a tacit admission that some jobs pay as little as benefits ?

It’s certainly not fair to taxpayers like you, who get up, go out to work, pay your taxes and pay for those benefits.

> How about tax payers like me (we’re all taxpayers – VAT, council tax, bedroom tax) who left school in 1977 and over the years has paid a lot of tax and national insurance on the understanding that, should I fall on hard times, I could claim benefits or, should I be lucky enough not to need to, my national insurance payments would go to help those who did need help ?

National Insurance is payed for a reason. Stop perverting that reason.

So if Tuesday is when we help businesses creating jobs; and Sunday is when we help hardworking people with jobs; next Monday is when we do more to encourage people without jobs to find them.

Benefits will only go up by 1% – so they don’t go up faster than most people’s pay rises, as used to be the case.

> Missue of figures alert ! Its not the percentage of the rise that matters, but the benefit or wage it’s an increase of.

A 10% rise for someone on basic Jobseeker’s Agreement would only amount to little over £7 a week – or £1 per day.

Meanwhile, our MPs are happily accepting an 11% rise – that’s 11% of some very good existing rates of pay. Got anything to say about that George ? No ? Thought not.

When I took this job, some people were getting huge payouts – receiving £50,000, £60,000 even up to £100,000 in benefits. More than most people could get by working. That was outrageous.

> £50,000, £60,000 even up to £100,000 in benefits – what ? Yearly, monthly, weekly ? How were these benefits made up ? How many cases were there ? Were there any or did you just make it up ?

If  ‘some people’ ever really did get that much, then it must have been a very minute percentage of the total. So why are your policies designed to hit those much further down the chain, those on basic benefits ? Hardly fair, is it ?

So we’ve capped benefits, so that a family out of work can’t get more in benefits than the average working family.

> Define the “average working family”.

We’re now capping the overall welfare bill, so we control that. That came into force last week.

And we are bringing in a new Universal Credit to make sure work always pays.

From this month we’re also making big changes to how people go about claiming benefits.

We all understand that some people need more help than others to find work.

So starting this month we’ll make half of all people on unemployment benefits sign on every week – and people who stay on benefits for a long time will have to go to the job centre every day so they can get constant help and encouragement.

> so they can get constant help and encouragement – there speaks a man who’s never had to claim even the most basic benefits. Constant harrassment and discouragement would be nearer the mark.

To claim benefits people will also have to show they can speak English, or go on a course to learn how. It is ridiculous that people who didn’t speak English, and weren’t trying to learn it, could sit on out of work benefits in this country.

If people can’t speak English it is hard to get a job. Starting this week it will be even harder to get benefits if they’re not even attempting to learn it.

> How about posh boys who can speak English but talk bollocks, George ? How about people with regional accents ? Cut their benefits until they learn to talk proper ?

 We’re going to require people to look for work for a week first before they get their unemployment benefit.

When people turn up at the job centre they’ll be expected to have a CV ready and to have started looking on our new jobs website.

> By which I suppose he means their old, discredited, scam-riddled and generally ridiculed Universal Jobmatch.

From now on the deal is this: look for work first; then claim the dole. Not the other way around.

> Then slowly starve as your claim for basic benefit help takes weeks to be processed…or get evicted for not being able to pay your rent, bills, council tax, bedroom tax, etc.

We will ask many of the long term unemployed to do community work in return for their benefits -whether it is making meals for the elderly, clearing up litter, or working for a local charity.

> I do  like the use of ther word “ask” – as if you’d have a choice. But George, if there is all this work, why not pay people a proper wage – you know, the National Minimum Wage – to do it ? Working for benefits means they are no longer benefits – they are an illeagal, sub-NMW, slave labour rate job.

They will be gaining useful work experience and there’s an important principle here: if you want something out, you’ve got to put something in.

All of this is bringing back the principles that our welfare state was originally based on – something for something, not something for nothing.

That’s fair to the people claiming benefits – and fair to taxpayers who are paying for them.

> As pointed out, I am a taxpayer, we all are, and I have paid in plenty over the years towards the same benefits I now have to jump through hoops for.

And if some of the taxes I’ve paid also go to help others who need it, good – that’s the whole idea of society, at least as I understand it.

The old way has failed. More public spending leading to more welfare bills and more government jobs the country couldn’t afford.

Instead, this week, we follow the new way, our way: backing businesses by cutting their taxes so they can create jobs; cutting the tax on hard working people so their job pays; and holding back welfare rises and imposing more conditions on those claiming the dole, so that getting a job pays more.

> so that getting a job pays more – pays more what ? More costs in poverty, disease, stress, mental illness ? Bigger prison bills, when people are forced into desperate measures ? More homelessness ? Who exactly does this pay more to ?

The biggest business and personal tax cuts for a generation.

Welfare changes that get people back to work.

That’s our jobs plan and it’s the only plan in town.

And it’s working.

> Look, if you really just want to save money – stop subsidising the royal family (the true benefit scroungers), scrap Trident, stop getting embroilled in foreign wars that are nothing to do with us, 1% pay rises for MPs (and cut down on the expenses as well), stop pouring money into abortions like Universal Jobmatch… and so much more.

Of course, if your plan is actually a gradual reintroduction of the feudal system, then yes, it obviously is working.

Newcastle City Council passes £38m cuts package

A £38m cuts package has been passed as a city leader says to do otherwise would be to hand council control to the Government.

Newcastle’s Nick Forbes said he had no choice but to pass the latest round of budget cuts despite calls from some protesters to pass an “illegal budget” in which services are ran into debt.

The council cuts are the latest in a three-year budget made up of a reduction in Government grants and a rise in spending pressures.

As a result, libraries are being passed on to volunteers, leisure centres face the axe and some 1,300 jobs will go, 350 of them in the next financial year.

The cuts were debated as ‘bedroom tax’ protesters called on the council to stand up to the Government. Insisting he had no choice on the budget, Mr Forbes said: “I’m not prepared to countenance futile political gestures, or handing over direct control of this council to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles.

“I will not apologise for behaving responsibly and taking tough decisions to balance the books.

“Doing anything different would make Newcastle a target for national disgrace, and would deal a devastating blow to the image and confidence of this city.

> The revolution will not start in Newcastle…official.

“Nor, however, am I prepared to give up the fight for our missing £38m – money which has, in the large part, been collected from the businesses in our city through business rates and redistributed to other, more affluent, parts of the country. Any business being shortchanged by the amount that we are would be – rightly so – fighting its corner in every way possible. I will not apologise for standing up for the interests of this city. For seeking to protect the people of Newcastle from this Government, which seems hellbent on attacking those least able to stand up for themselves.”

> But you’re still making all the cuts that affect least able to stand up for themselves anyway ?  I could be wrong, but it does tend to look like they’re talking big and disassociating themselves from blame, then going away and initiating ConDem policies anyway.

Liberal Democrats said the figures being debated were misleading, with former council leader David Faulkner saying councils had always had to cope with cost increases.

Source – Newcastle Journal,  06 March 2014