Lord Duckhunter

I dont think Ed Balls would consider it as "left hand not knowing what right hand is doing", or even a u turn. This is what he said this morning; "Labour put up fuel duty in the past. But we often delayed or cancelled planned duty rises based on the circumstances at the time". At least we wont hear any nonsense about u turns ect from him over this, because they've "often" done it in the past themselves.

Power to the people Comrade.............

Dont spout such nonsense. The Country is in the middle of a 1930's depression that has nothing to do with the previous Labour administration, or the beloved Euro.it is all to do with "out of touch rich boys, looking out for the wrong type of people", the Daily Mail readership, and that dasterdly duo the Murdoch's. Things would be so much better with those lovely comprehensive working class boys Ed & Ed. You know Ed & Ed, the ones that advised that genius Gordon Brown..........

Can I count on your Vote?

Fcking hell, the blokes a lefties dream pin up. An Immigrant, on the social ,and working for the BBC. Surprised he 's not a Guardian columnist.

I'm trying to get some money together so me and my nipper can get a S/T. I might start a riot and maybe Andy will help me out.

Number 1, please point me in the direction of a post where I have agreed with removing housing benefit from the under 25's Number 2, I dont buy a paper, so certainly do not get my views from the Daily Mail. It appears to me that the latest insult when someone disagrees with a leftie is that they are a "Daily Mail" reader. It's become rather like a glory supporter, as in " I cant discuss football with you, because you're a glory supporter". I would just add that for such a disreputable rag the mail does appear to have a large readership. If I read this right, we have to continue to pay such a high level of benefits to stop the kids rioting and also to stop their Mums going on the game . I would also like to know if any of the taxpayers money will be used to pay for these services that these poor Mums are handing out, because if there is, then I'm against that as well. I am well aware that most housing benefit is paid to working people, and that the working poor is a major problem in this Country. However continuing to throw money at the unworking poor, will not make getting up and going to work very attractive. The way I look at it, there are 2 ways to make work more attractive then benefits. One is to increase pay and the other is to cut benefits. Now you could increase the minimum wage by £3 an hour, but that would load more costs onto employers at a time when they have enough already. Surely forcing employers to bare the burden of 40 years of Government failure is just not on, and will lead to mass job loses. The other politically and practically easier way is to cut benefits, to go back to what the welfare state was designed to do, be a safety net, and stop making benefits a lifestyle choice.This should have been done by the last Labour Govt, but they will never do anything about it.

Nonsense. What is the "first rung of the ladder"? Even if we give them a leg up onto the first rung of the ladder, to stop them rioting. Surely they'll want to get onto the second rung. If they see that having a riot got them onto the first rung, then they will work out that a good old riot will be rewarded with a free place on the second rung? "You need to treat the causes of the riots". The causes of the riot was greed & wanting to cause disruption, plain and simple. They weren't rioting to find food, they were nicking electrical goods, trainers ect.Or just pointlessly smashing up people's neighbourhoods. It wasn't some grand cause like the race riots in the USA during the 60's was it?

What a load of ****ing shiete. NO MONEY, ********, I bet they all had mobile phones. I just dont recongnise the picture of "povety" that lefties and sandal wearers portray in this country. 80% of the Worlds population would give their right arms to live in the "povety" that those riotting idiots live in. I'm glad my Gran's not around today to hear your definition of "no money". She had a disabled husband in a wheelchair before the welfare state. She was trying to bring up 2 children in the 1940's with a husband unable to work, yet she didn't riot. She didn't complain, or moan she just got on with it. I cant quite see her whining whilst trying to scrape some food togther "It's not fair , I didn't invade Poland" Before setting off to riot and burn down her neighbour's business' and communites where real people lived. She was too busy trying to survive than to waste time and energy rioting.

Come on, he does have a point. Have you seen how much tax is on ciggies and Booze? If they spend all their dole money on fags & booze, they are contributing towards the money that the taxpayer then pays them ,to buy fags and booze. It's trickle down socialist economics.

Any statue has to include the old women on the disability scooter and Steven Hawkin's love child on the bubble bus..........

That's exactly the problem, and it's not just people out of work. As I said earlier I've had good hard workers, who have refused prmotion and a higher wage because it would hit their WFTC. Their line is that they'll get a lot more hassle at work being at a higher level and any increase in pay will be cancelled out by a loss of benefit.

I doubt if I would need to. More than likely I would get better provision by just staying on welfare, which is exactly my point. If the local dole office (if there's still such a thing) said "we have a job for you, pushing trollys at Tesco and if you dont take it your benefits will be cut", what would I do? So what if some rich tw at see's me, he should think I'm doing all I can to support the family, not start taking the pi 55 down the golf club. Every week on Question time they'll be some numpty in the crowd telling us how "they'd do anything, they just want a job". I would love for one of the panelists to turn round and say "I'll give you a job, you can clean my house 5 days a week, minimum wage". I wonder how many of the "desperate to work" people would do it, and do it well.

Its just not about motivation. They were respcetful, polite and a credit to their country. We have a whole generation of people who feel that they should have a right to work in their given field. There are certain jobs that they feel are below them. When I left school there was a recession on, jobs were scarce. Most of my mates struggled to get jobs, but my old man kept on and on at me.Used to make me get up when he went to work, asked me each night "what have you done to find work today". His take on it was I could stay at the house rent free, but I had to be looking for a job. He also wouldn't let me go on the **** until I found one. Occasionally, taking me up his local (which was the most boring pub I've ever been in). In the end I ended up getting a job just to shut him up. I was scared of heights at the time, but ended up labouring for a roofer, and this was the pre H&S days, so I used to shiete myself daily. I just worked out that I was more scared of my dad than I was of heights, so went to work and overcame the fear of heights quickly. The point is, I had a middle class upbringing and my parents could easily have kept me until I found a job that fitted with what I wanted. That wasn't an option for them, their policy was get any job and then start looking for what you want. Undoubtably there are youngsters with that attitude, but are there as many as there should be? What doesn't help is the last Govt con job on the young, leading them to believe you had to go to uni. That has driven the "I've spent 3 years on a degree, I'm not going to dig holes" attitude in some of them.

The FL can impose any terms they like in return for the Golden share, I believe ours was no appeal, Boscombe & Leeds' was extra point's deduction. They'll see how it plays out before making any decision. The Leeds thing was because Bates took the pi ss. Surely if it's Chanari, they'll do the same. I feel that if a miracle happens and the bell ringers community club thing takes over, they'll bend over backwards to help them.

Spot on, they should be a stop gap. If there were more people like your mate, then welfare would not be such a toxic issue.

Welfare should be "has no money and takes money from the state on a temp basis whilst looking for a job (any job)".

I have had English people turn down promotions because it effects their WFTC. I have had Englsih people turn down overtime for the same reason, or they claim it's not worth it because the tax man takes a lot of it. I have yet to have a Pole turn down overtime, in fact I had to tell them to take time off because they were overdoing it. I cant speak for all Poles, but the ones that worked for me, were hard working, respectful and would do any job asked of them without complaining. I wish the same could be said of all my English workers.

My wife is a student midwife, and she has a NUS card. She qualifies in the next couple of months and (fingers crossed) starts with the NHS in Nov, where she will be earning pretty decent money. If the ticket office just accepted her NUS card, she would be getting a consession price for the whole season. Surely it's only right that students prove that they are going to be a student for the whole (or large majority) of season? I would say the ticket office have done the right thing.

So we can't cut the benefits of people refusing to join proper society, because if we do they'll just do illigal things? Welfare should be a safety net for people who are struggling at any given time. Provided they want to get into work, are willing to do any work and are honest law abiding citizens (or is it subjects), then I see no reason why the state shouldn't help them through a difficult period. What I cant get my head round is why our money should be used to fund someone's lifestyle choice. If half a million Poles can find work at the drop of a hat, why are there English people in their 20's & 30's who have never worked?

The feeding part is easy, some sort of pre paid card which can be used in supermarkets to buy food. The unpalatable truth is that the only way we can break the cycle in some cases is to take the children away from the destructive family life they have. In 2012 that is not going to happen, so we end up with generations and generations left behind. It's not the kids fault and if there was an easier answer someone would have found it by now.

Exactly. No doubt Red Ken will be one of the first lefties squealing about welfare clampdown.

5 years ago I was trying to fill posts just above the minimum wage. All I got applying was Polish and timewasters. Timewasters who applying for the jobs, just to satisfy the autherites that they were looking for work and therefore could keep their benefits. They barely made any attempt to conceal the fact, and did not really want the jobs. It is these people that I think of when reforming the benefit system is discussed. How was it that half a million Polish came over here and found work, yet their are people who have been unemployed 10 years? Welfare should be a safety net for people, not a way of life. You say you worry about "the implementation, which is likely to be scatter-gun, and will likely affect people that fall well outside this culture of entitlement" , but the people to blame for this are not the ones trying to clamp down on abuse, but the ones that milk the system to end up with more disposable income than the average working man.As you say it will not be done until after the next election, so let's hope the Torys put it in their manifesto, and then nobody can complain they haven't got a mandate for it.

I'm also attacking Labour rank and file that voted Tax avioder ken Livingstone onto their NEC. In fact Livingstone topped the poll, that's how serious they are about tax aviodence in the Labour party. We expect our politians to be hypocrites, but when it trickles down to the grass roots, it's a bit worrying.

I didn't know that only one country outside of Europe has 50% or higher tax rate, so thanks for that. My view is pretty much that a % is a %, and can't quite understand why the richest have to pay an even higher %. Particulary when you bare in mind that they pay for an NHS they proberly dont use, schools for their children when most go private, and public transport which I doubt they ever go on. All in all we get a good deal out of the richest in society and they pay a lot more in terms of % into the revenue than they did in the 70's. I'm just under the 40%, will never get anywhere near the 45%/50% but still feel the richest do pay their fair share, it's just the ones that dodge it who give the rest a bad name.