Look at Sweden and Denmark's fiscal deficts relative to the UKs. They have been disciplined and kept public spending under control. Sweden returned from economic crisis by being disciplined and cutting their deficit come what may. Unsurprisingly, there was initial resistance from the idiots on the left but the medicine has worked big time.

With their tax & NI receipts, it's a lot simpler to keep public spending under control, especially when you also factor in not wishing to act as the world's policeman

1) Yes, they are demonised. By assorted rags that have sought to create an idea that anyone who is in receipt of any form of benefit (apart from ones such as child allowance or pensions, which the middle classes receive too) are scroungers and are living a life of off the backs of "we" hardworking taxpayers. Even a fleeting look at the comments sections of much of the media reveals that this has been incredibly successful.

So successful has it been that there are reports of increases in the amount of abuse that disabled people are suffering. Why else would there be an increase in such abuse?

2) "Feed themselves"? Will that explain the rising number of foodbanks in the UK? Foodbanks that serve, in many, many cases, people who work, but who have a low enough income that they are increasingly finding themselves faced with a choice between food or heat?

You see, that's the sort of thing that personally, I find obscenely wrong. Just as I find it obscenely wrong that "we", those taxpayers who are doing a bit better, are subsiding the profits of very large and very successful companies that refuse to pay their workforce a decent, living wage – something that would actually help the economy as a whole.

And, as has been said already, why not look at Scandinavia instead of North Korea, since absolutely nobody here is talking about anything even close to the latter.

Mintball, you are right, however, there are people who abuse the system who deserve the vitriol of the decent majority.

The genuine benefit claimants should be treated with respect and helped accordingly, but their cause is not helped by people who are no better than vermin.

"Their cause" is not helped by people who are themselves such total ted imbeciles that they don't appear to have the brainpower to realise that not everyone on benefits is a scrounger. Indeed, that the 'real' scroungers are a tiny, tiny minority.

But that doesn't make for good headlines that persuade people to jerk their little knees madly.

These are the same sort of dumb f•cks that cannot tell the difference between peadophile and paediatrician. And the only people to blame for the actions/behaviour of these sort of easily-manipulated thickos is themselves and the irresponsible media outlets and politicians that peddle lies such as Cameron's claims about families of three generations who have never worked and never shown any inclination to do so.

It's just the same with all the thick f¨cks who still believe that Labour caused the financial crisis, FFS.

ah sweden, where they've adopted the mantra, "sell it off, sell it all off". good to see you approve of the mass privatisation of public services.

They may not have caused the financial crisis. But they certainly contributed.

The Labour 'boom years' were false. They were a lie. The economy during that period was a fictional set of numbers cooked up with cheap credit and reckless public spending as two of the main ingredients.

That said, I think we are screwed until 2020, regardless of who is at the helm.

Yes: they contributed, by continuing the same neo-liberal idiocy as under the previous Conservative administrations of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. In other words, furthering the 'causes' of deregulation and privatisation.

So it wasn't Labour's fault but they did have a big degree of culpability! Furthermore, they did what they did because a previous Tory government had! Sums up alot.

Where was the rainy day money?

I actually liked Blair, but he and Gordon Brown were no better than my 8 year old with his pocket money burning a hole in his pocket. Spend spend spend!

At least the Tories never pledged to match Labour's spending plans right up until the crisis hit, eh?

Try reading [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?utm_hp_ref=twTHIS[/url and before you ask, it's written by a conservative

Rainy day money?

I bet your seven year old would be embarassed to use such a term. How many governments keep the odd £1.5trn down the back of the sofa, just in case some bankers fu[ic[/ik up?

You do run Sal Paradise close in the thickness stakes

Labour didn't leave any money and they left the notes to prove it.

The Tories are as bad.

maybe. but we've a way to go before reaching your levels of ineptitude.
is it the swedes private healthcare you admire so much?

Although the Swedish healthcare system seems OK (and could hardly be described as private), why would I want to replace our NHS with something more expensive?

Another one who fails to grasp the concept of humour.

Could you imagine if Liam Byrne had ran off with some dirty floozie?

-[ishudders[/i-

The only people being demonised by the press are those that abuse the system - and they should be. We have more people on disability than ever despite falling manual labour and significantly better and more expensive health service. In better I mean more advanced drug treatments. It doesn't make logical sense. When you have benefits rising quicker than the minimum wage than something is wrong. If I lost my job I would most likely have to sell my house and move to cheaper area - so you can see why many get frustrated at the outrage that some might have to move because their benefits no longer allow them to continue living in London!!

On the food - do we have people starving in this country? no we don't - how many of these who have to choose between heating and food continue to smoke and drink? You complain about paper sensationalising but you are doing exactly the same food banks are a minuscule element of our food supply chain.

On corporate tax - this is global issue, just like you banking crisis - unless it is sorted worldwide this will continue to happen. If large corporations didn't contribute I would agree but they do and you know that - if you took the value of taxation a Marks & Spencer's pays on employing people i.e. employers NI it will run into hundreds of millions - plus all the money that is pumped into the economy my those employees of M&S. After all you and Mr Fish are advocating greater public spending to stimulate the economy by creating jobs!! but you give no credit to those companies who do make massive contributions through the numbers they employ.

I have asked on here before but what do you think a living wage should be - if you push the minimum wage up then you need to reduce the tax burden on companies elsewhere, government will not need the levels of revenues. You are in effect moving further right with less government input into where the taxation monies are spent.

On Sweden/Denmark, these are small countries where a position of high taxation is accepted - I personally do not think there is an appetite for 32% income tax plus 16% NI and VAT at 25% as in Sweden. You have vilified this government for increasing VAT to 20%. Interestingly corporation tax in Sweden is 22%.

Really ?

Was the "workers not shirkers" comment just aimed at the small minority who abuse the system ?

Or should we start with a definition of just exactly what "abusing the system" is since the definition of what "incapable of work" is seems to have shifted alarmingly in the past two and a half years.

Presumably the IDS opinion that JSA is a wage and that claimants should be happy to "work" for it falls into the same category too, despite, and totally ignoring the fact that its illegal, hardly any wonder that the current incumbents are making noises about wanting to withdraw from Human Rights Agreements.

With a large section of the press working alongside them (have we reached a conclusion yet Leveson ?) the current incumbents are feeding propaganda to the masses in a way that would have had Goebbels rubbing his hands with glee, but the most distressing thing of all is the willingness of most of the population to swallow, digest, and actually enjoy what is pretty pernicious information.

Gallows humour...

What? How many people do you think that are on DLA have a disability that is curable?. The word "disability" is the key.



You probably wouldn't need to sell your house. Certainly not right away. I am sure you not being a "shirker" would have not problem getting a new job anyway. I mean isn't part of your argument that the jobs are there if people would only get off their backside and look for them?



So why do we have the need for food banks then?



Not this rubbish again. The fact companies pay NI doesn't mean they are not expected to also pay corporation tax at the going rate. UK based companies can't avoid it, only the multi-nationals can but as has been pointed out many times this isn't just because it is an international problem but because HMRC is also too relaxed over the reliefs it grants for things like use of brand names and trade marks. There is far, far more money to be recouped by attacking the "tax gap" than there is in reducing benefits. It is something like 10 times the amount.



A living wage is supposed to be £7.45 an hour outside London £8.55 per hour in London. The current minimum wage is £6.19 if you are over 21. Supporters of the living wage include Boris Johnson and IDS (work should be seen to pay is what he said about it) and employers who pay it report less absenteeism, better recruitment and retention of staff and positive impact on their organisation as being seen as an ethical employer. Ed Milliband has suggested government contracts be giving to living wage employers in preference to those who don't pay it which seems like a very good idea.

Interestingly Cameron supported it in opposition but dropped it once he got in power not even paying the downing street cleaners the living wage. Paying it also reduces the benefits bill. Some companies [ido[/i already pay the living wage. Barclays. HSBC and KPMG do. A lot of councils do. The Holiday Inn chain in London does (and hotel work is a notoriously low paid sector) The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the treasury saves £1000 in benefits and tax credits for each living wage worker. The simple fact of the matter is the vast majority of firms can afford it.

I can't answer the question above. But it is evident that the current system is open to huge abuse. Hence the fact it is being reformed.

Is it? You'll have no problem supplying this evidence then - will you?






I really can't believe you are that naive.