Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020

Wonder what he is going to do next week? So many pitfalls

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbEC9Qzwceg

A video to watch from 38 Degrees.

Of course I am far cleverer than all of them djen, I just hide my light under a bushel

Yes, but everyone knows that expression 'All brains and no common sense' don't they?
I just happen to have both [smug]

Actually, rose, some people think that Osborne is the brightest person in parliament, far cleverer than Dave. So if that's the case, you can see it as a compliment. Unless, of course, you really are far cleverer than Osborne, in which case.....
I'll just stop digging.

No I don't, of course not.

It was the 'even you' meaning, to my slow-witted brain, that either you think I am that dim or you think I am somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

How do you know my post wasn't meant to be humorous?

When I said nowt to do with Jeremy, I meant that what I think has nowt to do with Jeremy.

How about you answer the point if you think it's serious.
Do you think it is right that people who do not earn much should have to pay a higher tax rate than those who earn over £50,000?

Even you should be able to see that that cannot be right, even if Osborne can't.

Even me - wtf do you mean by that extremely rude remark?

I make a helpful remark which was slightly tongue in cheek but it obviously by-passed your sense of humour.

Nowt to do with Jeremy, roseq.
If Jeremy Corbyn has no thoughts on such a serious matter then he must be an absolutely useless leader of the opposition.

But you said it, that it was nowt to do with him, not me.

'Even you'

Charming!

Nowt to do with Jeremy, roseq.

I've been wanting IDS to leave for years. But that will mean that Osborne is being ridiculous about people on benefits working more hours.
It means that those on low incomes pay a higher tax rate than those earning more than £50,000.
Even you should be able to see that that cannot be right, even if Osborne can't.

I agree, Lucky.

I have just been reading this article.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/09/qe-has-saved-the-government-47-billion-over-four-years-and-so-george-wants-to-give-25-billion-back-to-bankers/

If the headline is true, why do we need such draconian cuts? It must just be for ideological reasons.
Also note that it's QE that has done it. Osborne laughs at the idea of QE but uses it all the time.

Luckygirl Its target needs to be carefully researched and monitored, but it must not go. I agree, but I think the monitoring needs to be far more stringent so that the right areas are targeted - and to avoid people thinking that it is a waste of taxpayers' money.

Help! What should I think now?
Are you asking us?

A suggestion:
'What would Jeremy think'
Does that help

jeberdes83 - have you read the thread about wealth? Even my OH and I, with our very small pensions, are in the top 3% for income in the world.

Foreign aid must continue or we cannot regard ourselves as a civilised nation. Its target needs to be carefully researched and monitored, but it must not go.

Am not sure if this is relevant to the discussion here, but there is all the hue and cry over the Chancellors proposed cuts, affecting family income and also the NHS, the police etc, Surely the first and deepest cuts should be to the millions which is generously given in foreign aid?

Even more of a quandary now.
IDS has said he will resign if he does not get his way over universal credit.
Help! What should I think now?

Just been reading about somebody who had the PIP stopped because the tribunal asked if the person used facebook.
When the person said a few times, they produced a facebook page which showed it had been used a lot more, so refused the PIP.
The person was not allowed to say any more, so will have to appeal. The partner used the same facebook account.

I don't know why bonuses were introduced for civil servants, it seemed strange to me.

I remember getting a bonus of £15 in 2002/3

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-staff-received-almost-140-million-in-bonuses-over-the-last-three-years-a6725371.html

Why should DWP staff get bonuses?
What exactly do they get them for?

This is for George:

Got my back against the wall,
My face against the wind,
They love to see me fall,
But hate to see me win,
I will not be stopped,
Patience grow within, yeah, yeah,
I'm on the outside looking in!
Oh, I'm in this shit too deep,
Deeper than the bottom of the cool Blue Sea

So it might be a good idea to:

Make a U-turn baby
Make a turn around,
Make a U-turn now
Here it is
Make a turn around,
Make a U-turn now
U-turn now

Go and check on your anti-Dave petition, Durhamjen, that's bound to get you back on track!

but quite dismayed at finding myself having to agree with IDS
I have a virtual bottle of smelling salts somewhere if you would like to use them

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/06/george-osborne-iain-duncan-smith-universal-credit-tax-credits

Just read this in the Guardian. Really pleased that Osborne and IDS are arguing, but quite dismayed at finding myself having to agree with IDS.

Need to go and do something else to recover.

"Sanctioning is no longer a last resort tactic aimed at the stubbornly workshy, say critics, but a crude way of pushing down claimant numbers and cutting back on the benefits bill. The work and pensions committee has heard estimates that sanctions have seen £275m withheld from claimants – who are already living on the breadline – over the past two years. The biggest impact has been on vulnerable individuals, such as people with mental illness, who are unable, rather than unwilling, to comply with the benefit conditions.

Food banks and local authority crisis welfare schemes report that sanctions account for the increasing number of penniless people who come to them in desperation. One of the most shocking aspects of the sanctions regime has been the number of stories of people who have been driven to crime or destitution – in some cases with fatal consequences – after having their benefits stopped, often for spurious reasons.

Some Jobcentres have been criticised for allegedly setting up “hit squads” to targeting vulnerable claimants – including those with learning difficulties, or with mental illness – for sanctions to enable staff to meet monthly targets.

Perhaps the most damning criticism is the lack of evidence that sanctions make people more likely to get into employment. The government’s work programme providers admit the poverty caused by sanctions makes vulnerable job seekers less likely to find work."

From an article in the Guardian in January this year.

Whatever government is in power, it isn't right that such letters should be sent out to elderly people, particularly when no details are given as to why the supposed mistake has occurred. I'm not sure, though, that I would describe it as "bullying" - I would could it incompetence.

I doubt that the government actively encourages civil servants to bully claimants but it could be argued that certain policies may well set the scene for a somewhat adversarial relationship between job centre staff and claimants:

Guardian March 2013

"Fresh written proof has been leaked showing that jobcentre staff are being set targets to sanction benefit claimants, and warned they will face disciplinary action if they do not meet the targets."

Following the bad publicity, I don't know whether this policy was abandoned but, even if it was, it would have already set the tone of the relationship between staff and claimants.

convoluted sentence there