The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Milk]

I would have thought the police clamp down on drink driving and the rising cost of a pint would have the most influence on pubs shutting. Those and the fact that there were simply too many in any case to support themselves.
But a pub in a predominantly Muslim area isn't going to do a shedload of business

Vote Loony for a fairer deal.

 

[hullefc]

Scrapbook’s posts last week on the benefits sanctions regime has generated a flood of comment — including from DWP staff confirming that they are given “expectations” (targets) with respect to cutting claimants’ benefits:

• Dad had benefits cut while caring for cancer-stricken baby
• Jobseeker had benefits cut for attending dad’s funeral
• Jobcentre awards gold stars for sanctioning claimants

This week we can bring you perhaps the most bizarre sanctions story yet: a woman from the North West who had her benefits cut for, errr, applying for too many jobs.

The Jobseeker’s Allowance claimant agreed with her adviser that she would look for vacancies in a particular sector. Having dispatched double her mandated number of applications in one week, she found she had exhausted the pool of suitable local positions in the next — and was sanctioned as a consequence.

A director of DWP told a committee of MPs that there are no targets for staff.

This is the bigger picture for over many people that have been illegally sanctioned since 2012. DWP staff lying to get people sanctioned because targets have been set and insisted upon by managers to please Ian Duncan Smith and the Tory assault on those the state helps. A rise of 1% in income tax would alleviate the need to illegally penalise those that need help.

Edit. In 2013, 871,000 people were sanctioned, losing some or all of their benefits payments for a minimum of four weeks, rising to three years in exceptional cases

 

[Bruce Wayne]

My main point is that under this coalition govenment most people are worse off than they were before. We pay more or the same in tax, have reduced or non-existent public services, the NHS is under threat, our public transport infrastructure is under threat, people are facing huge food bills and heating bills and the govenment are doing nothing about it.

As Cowboy says earlier, surely we have to look at the bigger picture here. I can't believe it's at all sensible to believe that whoever is in government is responsible for each and every little thing that happens to a country and its people.

If the Chinese economy were to crash for instance, that would have a huge impact upon our own economy, but that would hardly be the fault of whomever was in government.

The reality is though that after the crash, the banks were bailed out in a big way. I'm not a fan of corporate welfare in the slightest, but I don't think any of the parties opposed doing that or offered any alternative. That, coupled with the recession, left a huge deficit. Unless you support taking on even more debt, that surely means cutting funding in certain areas (or making things more efficient etc.).

Health, education and overseas aid have been ringfenced (the so called NHS blackhole is down to need rising faster than inflation, not a lack of spending per se), which has meant most of any cuts have been heavily focused in areas that aren't ringfenced.

To say the NHS is under threat though I just don't get. What's it under threat from? Likewise with public transport. Wasn't there a big bung proposed by Osborne for public transport just last week? With food bills, staple foods are remarkably cheap these days. Indeed, there are some posts earlier where @Milk (a farmer) reveals how tough it is to make a living because of the low prices.

Heating bills are largely a consequence of NIMBYism resulting in a lack of new energy projects in Britain. If you look at America for instance, they've gone so overboard with fracking that they're now challenging Saudia Arabia as the largest oil producer in the world, and the world oil price has dropped sharply as a result of the supply glut. Have we started fracking in Britain yet?

I'm not going to suggest that the Tories have been great, awful or indifferent, as to be quite honest I couldn't care less, but I fail to see how any other party would have done things that differently.

 

[OneTrueLegend]

I would have thought the police clamp down on drink driving and the rising cost of a pint would have the most influence on pubs shutting. Those and the fact that there were simply too many in any case to support themselves.
But a pub in a predominantly Muslim area isn't going to do a shedload of business

Vote Loony for a fairer deal.

I kind of thought the smoking ban had a lot to do with the pub closures of the last 5 years, with people opting to smoke in their own homes, rather than out on the pavement outside the pub.

Also I think we are going through a cultural change, I think people over 40 are more likely to have a "local" that they go to every night for the odd pint or on the way home from work. Where as I think people under 40 are far less likely to do that, they are not social in the same way, most of their socal activity happens through online social media and they would be more likely to go to a pub at the weekend or for a specific event.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Scrapbook’s posts last week on the benefits sanctions regime has generated a flood of comment — including from DWP staff confirming that they are given “expectations” (targets) with respect to cutting claimants’ benefits:

• Dad had benefits cut while caring for cancer-stricken baby
• Jobseeker had benefits cut for attending dad’s funeral
• Jobcentre awards gold stars for sanctioning claimants

This week we can bring you perhaps the most bizarre sanctions story yet: a woman from the North West who had her benefits cut for, errr, applying for too many jobs.

The Jobseeker’s Allowance claimant agreed with her adviser that she would look for vacancies in a particular sector. Having dispatched double her mandated number of applications in one week, she found she had exhausted the pool of suitable local positions in the next — and was sanctioned as a consequence.

A director of DWP told a committee of MPs that there are no targets for staff.

This is the bigger picture for over many people that have been illegally sanctioned since 2012. DWP staff lying to get people sanctioned because targets have been set and insisted upon by managers to please Ian Duncan Smith and the Tory assault on those the state helps. A rise of 1% in income tax would alleviate the need to illegally penalise those that need help.

Edit. In 2013, 871,000 people were sanctioned, losing some or all of their benefits payments for a minimum of four weeks, rising to three years in exceptional cases

Cause and effect isn't it? The state spends way more than it generates, that much is obvious. Health, education and overseas aid is untouchable, which has meant disproportionate cuts in other areas. Welfare is far and away the biggest expenditure in government, and it seems no party wants to touch pensioners, which leaves everyone else.

 

[rascal]

I agree with @OneTrueLegend I can't name a single thing that the Coalition have done which has benefited me or anyone else of a similar social standing.

 

[The Cowboy]

I kind of thought the smoking ban had a lot to do with the pub closures of the last 5 years, with people opting to smoke in their own homes, rather than out on the pavement outside the pub.

Also I think we are going through a cultural change, I think people over 40 are more likely to have a "local" that they go to every night for the odd pint or on the way home from work. Where as I think people under 40 are far less likely to do that, they are not social in the same way, most of their socal activity happens through online social media and they would be more likely to go to a pub at the weekend or for a specific event.

Ok, so that's the smoking ban, the rising cost of a pint, clampdown on drink driving, cultural changes, and a rise in non-drinking muslims. A range of factors, I believe.

At no point in that article earlier are Muslims pointed out as being the primary reason. One suspects the article was spun beautifully to hang this fella out the dry.

 

[Milk]

I kind of thought the smoking ban had a lot to do with the pub closures of the last 5 years, with people opting to smoke in their own homes, rather than out on the pavement outside the pub.

Also I think we are going through a cultural change, I think people over 40 are more likely to have a "local" that they go to every night for the odd pint or on the way home from work. Where as I think people under 40 are far less likely to do that, they are not social in the same way, most of their socal activity happens through online social media and they would be more likely to go to a pub at the weekend or for a specific event.

I'll give you the smoking ban - but conversely that made for a much more family orientated pub. Although I smoked 30 a day for 26 years, it is a real pleasure to be in smoke free atmospheres.

There is a lot more binge drinking these days among the younger generation. Us oldies prefer to have our tipple at home every night.

The only time I go to a pub is for a meeting or if I am holiday but I do note a massive increase in the quality of food now and that is what attracts me to a pub not the beer

 

[rascal]

Cause and effect isn't it? The state spends way more than it generates, that much is obvious. Health, education and overseas aid is untouchable, which has meant disproportionate cuts in other areas. Welfare is far and away the biggest expenditure in government, and it seems no party wants to touch pensioners, which leaves everyone else.

With regards to pensions, the state pension age needs to be a whole lot higher than it actually is. 70 would be a fair age.

 

[roydo]

I agree with @OneTrueLegend I can't name a single thing that the Coalition have done which has benefited me or anyone else of a similar social standing.

Rising the nil rate tax band is ok. And the pension stuff that comes in next April will be of benefit to me a bit. In a work way, not directly. But weigh that against Uni fees, then it will kind of even out a bit. Well a lot actually.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

With regards to pensions, the state pension age needs to be a whole lot higher than it actually is. 70 would be a fair age.

I quite agree, but I can guarantee if any party proposed that, there would be huge protests from those fast approaching that age. All politicians know that older people vote a lot more than younger people. Doing what's right for the politician generally trumps doing what's right for the country.

 

[hullefc]

Cause and effect isn't it? The state spends way more than it generates, that much is obvious. Health, education and overseas aid is untouchable, which has meant disproportionate cuts in other areas. Welfare is far and away the biggest expenditure in government, and it seems no party wants to touch pensioners, which leaves everyone else.

By choice. The Tories boost the housing market by cutting stamp duty. A political choice to gain votes. Not many of the 850 000 that were sanctioned in 2013 will be Tory voters. Dame Porter political gerrymandering springs to mind.The sanction regime is the biggest cause in the growth of foodbanks. And that is the fault of Ian Duncan Smith and the incumbent Tory government. Who fanatically want to penalise those that need help but will give tax breaks to those it is trying to woo to vote for them.

It is a matter of choice. The cause is the Tories dislike of certain people and the effect is misery, destitution and despair.

 

[roydo]

With regards to pensions, the state pension age needs to be a whole lot higher than it actually is. 70 would be a fair age.

They wouldnt dare. Not until about 2030 anyrate, by which time the cost of pensions will actually be falling.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree with @OneTrueLegend I can't name a single thing that the Coalition have done which has benefited me or anyone else of a similar social standing.

I'm not sure what people expect though really? We had the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression. Is it realistic to expect things to be all rosy under that set of circumstances?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

By choice. The Tories boost the housing market by cutting stamp duty. A political choice to gain votes. Not many of the 850 000 that were sanctioned in 2013 will be Tory voters. Dame Porter political gerrymandering springs to mind.The sanction regime is the biggest cause in the growth of foodbanks. And that is the fault of Ian Duncan Smith and the incumbent Tory government. Who fanatically want to penalise those that need help but will give tax breaks to those it is trying to woo to vote for them.

It is a matter of choice. The cause is the Tories dislike of certain people and the effect is misery, destitution and despair.

Well of course it's a choice, I'm just saying that it's one I'm not sure any other party would have altered. If you have to make x amount of savings to a state budget you might say it's fair to make them evenly across the board. That didn't happen, and no politician will ever suggest a drop in the NHS budget.

So where does that leave you? What other choices did other parties suggest?

We have been in a huge recession and have a state that was already spending way more than it generated in taxes. What were the choices?