Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53/week fastest petition ever?

[Lord Beria3]

Thanks for that post H2K9, some people seem to forget that these ideological cuts are affecting real, live people. I've been on benefits in the past and I think that the safety net is now being cut away for vast swathes of the population. It is definitely ideological and the way the poor are being demonized is disgusting.

Funny how the market trader said he still had money to gamble! Clearly not that desperate.

And no, these are not idealogical cuts, PO means the end of growth and without growth our debts will explode and we won't be able to afford any welfare state.

[RenewableCandy]

Can I just get back to the food point?

Lack...of...enough...food...does...your...head...in. Please read that again if you didn't get it the first time 'round.

People have actually measured the number of IQ points lost per meal missed. The people who run prisons know that inmates are more likely to get violent, all other things being equal, if they don't get enough vits in their diet. People who go on slimming diets find that, as if by magic, they can't think of anything else but food.

And so on.

So if mildly-but-chronically hungry people gamble, well (you get the idea).

[nexus]

Beria,

Are you in favour of benefit cuts to the poor before sorting out tax avoidance by the rich?

Also it's ideological not idealogical.

Your 'market trader' point is entirely fallacious. It is like saying that because Dr Shipman killed people, other doctors kill people. Just because a market trader is not desperate doesn't mean other people aren't.

Finally we all know that the Tories aren't cutting welfare because of peak oil and they don't even accept that we have reached the end of growth, so don't pretend they're doing it out of some greater understanding. Only today Cameron was talking about Trident again. So clearly they are prioritizing an out dated weapons system over the welfare of the citizens of this country.

[nexus]

+1 to RCs post, the science is very clear and thanks RC for posting the link to the MP who is actually doing her job and trying to understand and represent her constituents-bravo to her.

[biffvernon]

I'm in favour of the cuts. It's just the timing that's wrong. They should happen after the rich folk have become poor. Only then should we look at making the poor poorer.

[extractorfan]

They don't have to know about peak oil, or do anything because of peak oil, peak oil means we all get poorer, we can afford less.

The benefit system needs reforming, it is totally obvious when some can live on benefits in a big house with 60k per year income, when the tax payer subsidises the wages of big corporation by way of income support, when the tax payer subsidises landlords with artificially inflated rental prices.

Just because someone is rich does not exclude them from the discussion just as being poor does not preclude one from free education.

There's not enough pie to go around. We all know that.

[nexus]

OK, so lets talk about how it can be shared out reasonably fairly before Cameron and his cronies make off with almost all of it.

[extractorfan]

There is no fair, there's just your point of view.

The only way you are going to punish the rich and make them poor is by massive popular dissent and revolution, which wont happen until and unless people get properly hungry.

Then even if it does, the leaders of the poor become the rich elite and the previously rich become dead.

Sorry, I'm obviously in a defeatist mood today.

[Lord Beria3]

OK, so lets talk about how it can be shared out reasonably fairly before Cameron and his cronies make off with almost all of it.

You may have noticed that we have hardly grown since 2008! Thats partly due to the massive national debt but also PO and high energy prices hampering any economic recovery.

To ensure that our gilt yields remain low the government knows that it needs to sustain the confidence of international investors who buy gilts (thus keeping their yields low and ensuring that the UK government pays less on interest repayments).

To keep that confidence of investors it has promised to reign in rising state spending. As welfare is a very big chunk of government spending, it is a logical place to cut.

Defence is a relatively small part of spending and even if you got rid of Trident, the real financial benefits would be spread out over 30 years, b
not like a sudden cut to benefits.

Finally, tax avoidence is a problem but as I have explained so many times in the past, rich people can easily move offshore which limits the ability of any single national government to extract more taxes from the rich who keep wealth in the UK or reside in the UK.

Just look at France and how the rich are fleeing France. It doesn't work on a unilateral basis.

As for the rich, I can assure you that many will become very impoverished in the future (indeed many of the rich should be bankrupt if the central banks hadn't bailed out the financial system). Government bonds and to a less extent equities are massive bubbles which the rich have most of their wealth in. They are doomed to losing most of their wealth.

Governments are bankrupt. Growth is dead. The asset classes (like government bond markets etc) are massive bubbles which will destroy the majority of the rich in the future.

We will all become poorer or poor. And as governments are forced to live within their means, the welfare state as we currently know it will end. Its inevitable.

[biffvernon]

Remember to watch this film, six minutes, before talking about wealth distribution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

[RenewableCandy]

To ensure that our gilt yields remain low the government knows that it needs to sustain the confidence of international investors who buy gilts (thus keeping their yields low and ensuring that the UK government pays less on interest repayments).

a laudible aim as far as it goes, but:
1. They've failed (we've lost the AAA)
2. It is becoming evident that fleecing the poor is counter-productive. For example, I don't know if you know this, but the higher echelons of Tesco, of all people, are complaining that there are branches that are losing cash hand over fist because the poor aren't buying food any more: they're having to go to food banks to get it.

Whatever happens in the future, in the present, while we still have a sophisticated economy/infrastructure/etc, you cannot run such a place when a large part of the populace have their minds dominated by worries about where their next hot meal is coming from and whether they're going to lose the roof over their heads. Old-style repetitive, mechanical jobs can be carried out by people whose thoughts are elsewhere, but typical jobs today require mind as well as physical presence or strength.

[JohnB]

So what happens to the poor when they can't feed themselves or put a roof over their head? Presumably they die of cold or starvation, and clutter up the streets. Or they cost the state a fortune in emergency housing, medical care, or in prison when they resort to stealing to survive. Or they get quietly rounded up at night and "disappeared".

Of course there are scroungers who see life on benefits as an easy way to live, but there are scroungers at all levels, from the rich right up to the poor. Except to the rich it's "I want a few billion to bale out my bank", and to the poor it's "I need a few pounds to feed my family".

[kenneal - lagger]

So what happens to the poor when they can't feed themselves

Most people have a garden and you can get an awful lot of food out of a 3m x 3m plot. Although the weather isn't helping at the moment, the government should be encouraging all people to grow some of their food. If you're unemployed or in part time employment you have plenty of time to do it.

That won't help poor old Tesco though. Ha! bloody Ha! The rich as a group have forgotten that for an economy to work people have to have money to spend to keep the cash moving around the system. You can't get growth in an economy from the spending of the rich alone.

The government shot themselves in the foot when they dropped the 50p rate of tax because they lost the right to say that we're all in it together. Osbourne should have promised the tax cut as soon as the economy improved enough and asked the rich to bear with him and support the nation. They did the same with the introduction of the higher tax threshold in the budget without a cut off higher up the scale. As a result the rich are better off than the poor and the LibDems haven't complained about it because they want to make political capital over their tax reduction for the poor. Hypocrites!

I think that the government knows that we are on death row with the economy and are just trying to tide things over until they are chucked out of office so that they don't get the blame. If Labour get in at the next election and completely f**k things up, as they will do and have always done, the Tories hope for the sort of landslide that got Maggie in last time and kept her there for years.

The only problem with that sort of scenario is that the economy will be so bad that there will be no chance of a recovery. By then PO and Peak everything will have kicked in. The dollar will be toast, as will the world economy. The government will be trying to get rid of Trident and nuclear waste as it will have become an embarrassment, a danger and a security risk. Social security will have become an academic interest and hopefully we will have some sort of parish relief in parishes that can afford it.

Not that I'm particularly a doomer or anything!!

[Totally_Baffled]

Does anyone know if Mr Miliband or Ed Balls have commited to reversing these benefits changes?

Has anyone seen them asked the question?

They are going to win by a mile in 2015

[stephendavion]

432,187 Signed ( supporting ) ...