Discussion of other UK political parties
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
£120billion of your money down the drain EVERY year: The astonishing Whitehall waste that could send every British family on an annual luxury holiday

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has identified cuts that it says could save about £120billion – effectively wiping out the UK’s budget deficit – without ‘closing a single hospital, firing a single teacher or disbanding a single regiment’.
In its annual Big Bumper Book of Government Waste, the TaxPayers’ Alliance recommends a number of major reforms to claw back cash, including shaving £53billion off the pay and pensions packages of public sector workers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2WHu50Bvh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By Winegums
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
I wonder how much of that is "shit that didn't happen" and how much is just taken out of context.

I freely accept there will be a third category, of waste that is inexcusable, but I'm somewhat cynical that it's in the majority.
By new puritan
Membership Days Posts
Pay and pensions aren't 'waste' for fuck's sake. We could wipe out the budget deficit if rich cunts paid their fucking tax. Perhaps we can start with the directors of the Tax Dodgers Alliance.
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
new puritan wrote:Pay and pensions aren't 'waste' for fuck's sake. We could wipe out the budget deficit if rich cunts paid their fucking tax. Perhaps we can start with the directors of the Tax Dodgers Alliance.
Or their sponsors. If you can identify them, that is.
By canus insanus
Membership Days
new puritan wrote:Pay and pensions aren't 'waste' for fuck's sake. We could wipe out the budget deficit if rich cunts paid their fucking tax. Perhaps we can start with the directors of the Tax Dodgers Alliance.
Hear fucking hear a millionfold
By Projective Unity
Membership Days
Matthew Sinclair popped up on Breakfast this morning, not to moan about the hundreds of millions of pounds IDS has splurged on crappy IT for Universal Credit, but to put the boot into the unemployed.

Force claimants to work for benefits, government urged

It's essentially the Community Action Programme (which the DWP has seemed put away in a cupboard somewhere) indefinitely. Here's a link to the report if anyone's interested. It was written by a Tory entreprenaur who landed into a management consultant role straight after Oxford before setting up his own business. In his own words:
I was 24 at the time. One month I was working in a plush office for the world’s leading strategy consultancy, advising FTSE100 boards. The next I was driving a delivery lorry myself.
It's as easy as that :D
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
Heard him wanking off on the R4 this morning. Another of the many holes not pointed is that it doesn't create any employment and if anything takes vacancies off the job market. An interesting strategy would be for anyone who calls for the introduction of workfare should surrender their job to someone on £70 per week.
By new puritan
Membership Days Posts
Didn't catch the TPA stooge's name but I wanted to inflict serious violence on him by the end of that item. You can always rely on the BBC to give these fuckers a platform.
By The Red Arrow
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Meanwhile in other news...

More UK workers earning less than living wage, research shows
The number of UK workers earning below the so-called living wage has risen to 4.8 million, research suggests.
The figure, equivalent to 20% of employees, is up from 3.4 million in 2009, the Resolution Foundation think tank said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23953573" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
The Mail's version

Now even claimants admit they are getting too much in benefits: 59 per cent of those given handouts think they discourage work
What a load of tosh! £71 a week JSA or indeed ESA is not much to live on at all!
- Omnishambles, London, 4/9/2013 2:05
Click to rate Rating 320
So, to be clear, a 'majority' think £71 per week is a lavish amount and discourages work? It cannot be the top ups, housing benefit and council tax benefits keeping them 'sitting idle', because more of those are paid to working than non working people! Silliest article I've read in a while. If there were enough proper jobs (not unpaid, temporary, part time and zero contract), then people would work - there aren't, so they can't.
- Lin, Bromley, 4/9/2013 3:51
Click to rate Rating 269
The report suggests that 575,000 people could move on to the programme immediately. And it says that the programme would generate net savings of almost £2.5billion a year and see 345,000 people come off welfare in the first year.
Immediately? Has the TPA even considered the problems in controlling an unpaid workforce of over half a million?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2dv3ceBPC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By new puritan
Membership Days Posts
I see johnnyvoid has already dealt with this.
The cost of forcing everyone onto mass workfare is glossed over in the report, unexpectedly for an organisation that claims to be about saving the tax payer money. Apart from a few figures they pulled from their arses, there is no mention of how fares, supervision, management and recruitment costs will be met. Greedy welfare-to-work sharks, like Tax Payers Alliance funders Avanta, are currently raking in £400 for every person they send on just a months workfare, around one and a half the cost of that person’s Jobseekers Allowance – which of course would also still have to be paid.

In truth this report is pie in the sky garbage from a bosses organisation who want to increase competition for jobs so they can force down wages and make a few quid for their mates in the welfare-to-work sector on the side. Even if just those on Jobseekers Allowance for over two years were forced onto the scheme, that would represent half a million unpaid workers entering the workforce. The charitable sector has no need of half a million full time volunteers which would cost a fortune to recruit and manage. The TPA’s idea that people should sweep the streets or do ‘community service’ instead is equally clueless, particularly as they pretend that they don’t want workfare to replace real jobs. The cost of these proposals would be astronomical, and just like the current workfare schemes, and Tony Blair’s New Deal before them, sourcing enough work placements for everyone would be impossible.

In fact the Tories originally planned rolling six month periods of workfare for everyone leaving the Work Programme, an idea quietly abandoned after pilot projects were unable to find enough placements.

But even this isn’t enough for the Tax Payer’s Alliance. They want this lunacy extended to everyone on out of work benefits – up to five million people. And anyone who refuses, or is unable to attend workfare, will lose their homes. If they got their way you wouldn’t be able to walk down the street for fucking street cleaners, weaving their way in and out of the sleeping bags of homeless children as a message to everyone else what will become of you if you can’t find a job in Tesco.
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/09 ... ie-in-sky/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By shyamz
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Do they think the people won't notice that their new idea of working for benefits is just Workfare with a different name?

They failed to get support for Workfare, but are still determined to have it one way or another.
By new puritan
Membership Days Posts
More from Richard Seymour.
The report itself is utterly disingenuous in its presentation of findings. Eager to imply that the unemployed consume large amounts of public spending, the report claims that welfare takes 28% of government spending, 57% of which goes to "benefits for working-age people". In fact, in 2011-12, the biggest portion of the total benefits bill went to pensions, which took £74.2bn of £159bn. Jobseeker's allowance accounted for a mere £4.9bn. Not only that, but a large amount of the benefits claimed – whether housing benefits, child tax credits or council tax benefits (abolished since April) – are available to people in work.

It goes on to point out that 5.6 million working-age people are not working and are reliant on benefits, suggesting that "in many cases the value of these benefits taken together adds up to £15,000 to £25,000 per year". Weasel words: "many cases" can mean anything from two upwards. In this case, it most likely refers to those well-known anecdotes that circulate in the tabloid press, such as those concerning the relentlessly demonised Iona Heaton and family.

The report calls for benefits to fall in real terms, and refers to "the regrettable 5.2% blanket benefit increase put through in 2012". It doesn't mention that this was an inflation-linked rise. For a single recipient of employment support allowance, for example, the increase is a mere £2.80. The TaxPayers' Alliance can rest comfortably in the knowledge that things will get much worse for people on benefits for the next three years, as the government keeps rises below the rate of inflation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... s-alliance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 21
Mark Francois MP

Away from pies and back to something else full of […]

Boris Johnson


US election 2020

Nate Cohn makes a similar point https://twitter.c[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread