Cameron forms his government, Ian Duncan Smith keeps his job

[Arthurgray50@blu]

http://news.sky.com/story/1481453/ia...d-pensions-job

With the worst thing that could have happened, this man will remain the most hated person going

I think the people that voted the Tories in, should have a long hard look in the mirror and say 'what have l done wrong'

If this man has his way, every disabled person, or anyone on disabilities had better watch out.

If you can walk, talk, shake hands, and bend over. He will have to back working within a couple of weeks to save money on Benefits.

The Tories will NOT hit the rich with tax increases, They will hit the poor and vulnerable

There is already a hint that the Bedroom Tax WILL increase, and it wouldn't surprise me that any benefit will have a tax attached to it

I think that Tory voters should hang there heads in shame- deplorable result

[Ignitionnet]

Welcome back, Arthur.

Given Tory voters got the result they voted for unsure why they'd hang their heads in shame.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

They should hold there head in shame. The Tories will now bring out cuts that this country has never seen before

Within the next twelve months - the poor will go back 30 years. and live in extreme poverty. and we could have power cuts, with unions going on general strike.

Cameron will be worse tham Thatcher. And the rich will get away with murder. They should pay more taxes. But, they wont.

I could be without a job in six months, and l look after the vulnerable, and they have been hit hard already and it will get worse.

Cameron thinks only of one kind of people - the rich

[Ignitionnet]

I don't think it'll be quite that cataclysmic.

This next year or two aren't going to be pleasant though - Osborne has had to accelerate the pace of cuts to account for some changes in predictions made by the OBR. If he hadn't accelerated them he'd have failed in a target of his.

By 2018 there will likely be some spending increases and, especially, tax cuts to buy the 2020 election.

In the interim hold on tight.

EDIT: For the curious the change in prediction was the 'slack' in the economy. The unused capacity. This is way lower than was originally thought and is expected to hit zero by 2018. It's this figure that forms a basis for structural deficit calculations so if Osborne is running any deficit at all in 2018-2019 he will have failed to eliminate the structural one. Structural deficit = deficit - spare capacity, hence why growth can't eliminate it as it removes spare capacity.

They need the money to replace the current "trident". How can they nuke people with an old obsolete system? Ok,they will say, it's a deterrent....

The poor here, plus elsewhere will suffer. Double whammy!

Blah blah blah, Arthur why educate yourself on what the rich contribute to the UK economy. Tax them more and they will leave meaning the poorer become more poor

http://www.cityam.com/1412267818/sto...-us-all-poorer

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...ancellor-ever/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...9-million.html

Originally Posted by Mr Banana

Blah blah blah, Arthur why educate yourself on what the rich contribute to the UK economy. Tax them more and they will leave meaning the poorer become more poor

http://www.cityam.com/1412267818/sto...-us-all-poorer

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...ancellor-ever/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...9-million.html

very true indeed....

Originally Posted by Carlos Carboni

They need the money to replace the current "trident". How can they nuke people with an old obsolete system? Ok,they will say, it's a deterrent....

The poor here, plus elsewhere will suffer. Double whammy!

Er ... Yes, it is a deterrent. It is designed to be in use daily. To suggest a strategic nuclear deterrent is a weapon that can never be used, is to misunderstand its purpose. The day it is fired is the day it has failed. It exists, it works, those in charge of it have the will to use it in the event of existential threat. Those that might pose that threat, think twice, for fear of the consequences.

And, yes, all mechanical systems have to be replaced from time to time. Eventually the wear and tear becomes too great for maintenance and replacement of parts to be effective.

Incidentally, the cost of replacing Trident, even at £200 billion (which is about double the current upper estimate) is about £3-4 billion per year over the new system's expected lifetime. The idea that this one thing is somehow responsible for poverty and suffering on Britain's streets is exactly the sort of mule-headed, illiterate, lefty hyperbole that has no place in any government.

Originally Posted by Chris

.....s is exactly the sort of mule-headed, illiterate, lefty hyperbole that has no place in any government.

name calling lol

who do you have in mind to bully into submission?

[Ignitionnet]

I'm sure that the rich paying more in income tax is in no way related to that their incomes have risen over the past years, in some cases 50% in half a decade, while those of others have been largely flat or dropped.

Also conveniently ignores that income tax forms a lower part of our tax take than previously, replaced by amongst other things VAT.

One of the articles there firstly is in CityAM whose readership is pretty clear, and is written by:

Caroline Garnham is author of “When you are Super-Rich who can you trust?”, published on 28 October. Her website www.familybhive.com brings together UHNWs and advisers.

Am I to take this at face value?

Spectator, Fraser Nelson. Neo-liberal economics, Tory supporter.

No idea about the other two but ignoring that there are millions of under-employed, both in terms of hours and standard of employment, alongside that self-employment has increased enormously, to draw those conclusions merely from that the highly compensated, including myself, are paying a higher proportion of one tax is absurd.

Nearly as absurd as claiming that the UK's property is taxed punitively and that it would be simply awful if the super-wealthy stopped pumping up house prices in London and the South-East.

We've the largest concentration of billionaires per head in the world I believe, if not right up there. With this you'd have thought we'd be the wealthiest, most developed, happiest country in the world.

We aren't, we aren't, and we aren't. Doesn't look as though it's quite that simple.

Originally Posted by Carlos Carboni

name calling lol

who do you have in mind to bully into submission?

I doubt I'm likely to bully anyone into anything. Why, do you feel bullied, or compelled to submit?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Carlos Carboni

name calling lol

who do you have in mind to bully into submission?

Unless you're in government I can't see how that was aimed at you

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Er ... Yes, it is a deterrent. It is designed to be in use daily. To suggest a strategic nuclear deterrent is a weapon that can never be used, is to misunderstand its purpose. The day it is fired is the day it has failed. It exists, it works, those in charge of it have the will to use it in the event of existential threat. Those that might pose that threat, think twice, for fear of the consequences.

And, yes, all mechanical systems have to be replaced from time to time. Eventually the wear and tear becomes too great for maintenance and replacement of parts to be effective.

Incidentally, the cost of replacing Trident, even at £200 billion (which is about double the current upper estimate) is about £3-4 billion per year over the new system's expected lifetime. The idea that this one thing is somehow responsible for poverty and suffering on Britain's streets is exactly the sort of mule-headed, illiterate, lefty hyperbole that has no place in any government.

Indeed. Given that the global nut jobs in North Korea have just tested a submarine launched missile system, and Russia's constant sabre rattling coupled with the constand instability in the Middle east and Nth Africa. I would suggest that retiring ours would be a little bit fool hardy

[Taf]

The replacement for ATOS is just gearing-up to start work. And PIP is rolling out to replace DLA. This is when the stuff hits the fan for the disabled and sick as Cameron wants it directed at THOSE MOST IN NEED. That sounds like cuts for those less in need, with IDS at the forefront of the attacks.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I'm sure that the rich paying more in income tax is in no way related to that their incomes have risen over the past years, in some cases 50% in half a decade, while those of others have been largely flat or dropped.

Also conveniently ignores that income tax forms a lower part of our tax take than previously, replaced by amongst other things VAT.

One of the articles there firstly is in CityAM whose readership is pretty clear, and is written by:



Am I to take this at face value?

Spectator, Fraser Nelson. Neo-liberal economics, Tory supporter.

No idea about the other two but ignoring that there are millions of under-employed, both in terms of hours and standard of employment, alongside that self-employment has increased enormously, to draw those conclusions merely from that the highly compensated, including myself, are paying a higher proportion of one tax is absurd.

Nearly as absurd as claiming that the UK's property is taxed punitively and that it would be simply awful if the super-wealthy stopped pumping up house prices in London and the South-East.

We've the largest concentration of billionaires per head in the world I believe, if not right up there. With this you'd have thought we'd be the wealthiest, most developed, happiest country in the world.

We aren't, we aren't, and we aren't. Doesn't look as though it's quite that simple.

Well said! Why people think we should fawn after the super-rich is beyond me. By treating these people so deferentially it places them in a position where government will be literally scared of offending them however legitimate any proposed law affecting them may be.