David Cameron pledges 'assault on poverty' with social reforms

And next week he will walk on water

streetskitchen.co.uk/cancer-patient-stripped-of-benefits-while-undergoing-chemotherapy/

Is this part of his assault on the poor?
Sorry, he said poverty, didn't he?

Don't make me laugh - just give the darned money back to the LAs so that they can reinstate all the services that have had to be axed because of the cuts.

He's got to wait until just before the next election before he does that, Lucky, so that those with short memories will vote Tory again.

So it's still sod the elderly
I work for Age UK and the pressures being put on charities to deliver services where Social Care can't meet the demand or the person isn't eligible are increasing on a daily basis.
There's only so much we can do and whilst we have brilliant volunteers, there are enough volunteers to go around

It's the idea that it's all the fault of the housing estates that gets me.
£140 million to spend on flattening the worst 100 estates and rebuilding.
He hasn't done the maths. Anyway, Osborne does not have the money to give him.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35274783

This is his latest.
Foreign students can come over here to study and stay if they get graduate jobs. But if they have to have menial jobs, they can go back home and leave those jobs for the British.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-sparks-furious-backlash-7173598

Makes you feel really wanted.

"As true today as it was when Neil Kinnock made the speech of his life 32 years ago (if not more so):

If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay. I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford.
I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient. I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up. I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old.

And whilst the Neoliberal voodoo economics ushered in by Thatcher appears to be on it’s death bed, who knows what untold damage it could do in its writhing death agonies."

I wonder who could make a similar speech today. It's amazing how true it still is; just needs Thatcher's heir in instead of Thatcher.

i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160117workdoesnotpay.jpg?resize=529%2C396

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/01/18/oxfams-message-is-simple-and-blunt-if-we-want-to-improve-most-peoples-lives-we-are-going-in-the-wrong-direction/

This is obscene. 62 people own as much as half the rest of the world.
The super-wealthy have seen an increase of 44% since 2010.
Report produced for Davos where the super-rich discuss how much more they can help each other to get even richer.

He has now pledged twenty million pounds to support Muslim women to break free of mail dominance , this from a PM who said to a fellow MP - calm down dear , she is female

Halleluyah! He has seen the light. Rejoice.

I agree in theory, Re, Muslim women being helped to speak English. But once again, this hasn't been thought through.
How are the women going to hear about these classes. Many of them are not allowed out without a male relative. And they certainly don't want the women educated. Good try, Dave, but it isn't going to work.

Sorts out the immigration problem, though. If they do not learn English, they are deported.

No, they are not deported for not learning English.

So Muslim men do not want Muslim women educated, there are no Muslim female doctors, teachers , no Muslim daughters in our universities . That Muslim schools are doing so well is a lie I suppose

They will be, though, Elegran. Do you not watch the news?

Westminster council's assault on the poor.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-run-council-spends-90000-7200898

No, durhamjen My TV is bust. But in any case I prefer to read an exact transcript of the speech, rather that a second-hand report of what he said.

And I am finding it very difficult to find any reports which include more than a sound-bite (or whatever the text equivalent is)

And some of those publishing short excerpts say "At the moment, someone can move here with very basic English and there's no requirement to improve it over time. We will change that. We will now say: if you don't improve your fluency, that could affect your ability to stay in the UK. This will help make it clear to those men who stop their partners from integrating that there are consequences." while other reports say "would impact"

There is a difference between those two words. I can't find a definitive report of the actual word he used.

You can say that this is nitpicking, but the exact words do matter.

Also nitpicking- he doesn't say how much improvement over two and a half years - that would be relevant - does he mean they should be able to say a few common words or phrases, or understand Shakespeare? Two and a half years is not long enough to be completely fluent in a language, but it is long enough to learn a little.

"Parents who are unable to speak English have less of a chance of preventing radicalization of their children, Cameron argued." - that is perfectly true. And if you can't understand English, you can't buy anything in a shop, or talk to the teacher, or tell the GP what your symptoms are, or make friends with your English neighbours.

Parents who are unable to speak English have less of a chance of preventing radicalization of their children, Cameron argued."

As you say, Elegran, that's perfectly true. Far from saying that not speaking English could lead to radicalisation, he's pointing out that if parents can't understand the language being used by those who preach radicalisation they're at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to protecting their own children.

He didn't put it across very expertly, did he?

Two negatives - not being able to speak English and not having the tools to fight radicalisation in their children. Now if he'd said that if they could speak English, they might be better armed to fight that radicalisation, it would have made a more positive impression, just as emphasising that the good things about speaking the language of their new country would mean they could become more settled here would have done.

He needs a new speech-writer - or perhaps he needs to pay more attention to the speeches he writes himself.