Tory plans to rob from the poor and give to the rich. Again...

Nibble · Apr 30, 2015

It's unbelievable really.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...xander-tory-plans-welfare-cuts-child-benefits

No plans to reign in billionaire tax cheats I see.

peterward · Apr 30, 2015

Nibble said:
It's unbelievable really.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...xander-tory-plans-welfare-cuts-child-benefits

No plans to reign in billionaire tax cheats I see.

The Guardian...... thats like quoting an anti Labour Piece from the Daily Mail

Firstly the Tories have denied it, and say its the Lib Dems getting desperate, making up lies as facing wipeout (and its no suprise this accusation has been made to coincide with question time leaders debate tonight) it wont matter if its not true, all that will matter is the perception, sling some mud and hope it sticks.

And even if it were true, which there is zero proof of, why would that be given to the rich, surely it would be to try and bring the countries spending in line with what it earns, to stop spending more than we earn and borrowing to do so.... How is that taking from the poor and giving to the Rich, those earning over 50k cant get child benefit??

Nibble · Apr 30, 2015

Okay. It's all lies. The Tory party will do it's uptmost to see the poor of this country live with dignity.

KZNSeagull · Apr 30, 2015

Planned, not plans. As that article quietly points out, the "plan" (really a paper drawn up for discussion) was in 2012 and was dropped.

Thunder Bolt · Apr 30, 2015

According to that article, it was a plan in 2012, which was dropped. Where is the proof that it is going to be implemented now?

pb21 · Apr 30, 2015

peterward said:
The Guardian...... thats like quoting an anti Labour Piece from the Daily Mail

Here you go, this may be more to your tastes, I guess its true now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nder-claims-Tories-trying-British-people.html

Mattywerewolf · Apr 30, 2015

Means testing Child benefit makes a lot of sense. If anything this is giving from the rich to support the poor.

pb21 · Apr 30, 2015

KZNSeagull said:
Planned, not plans. As that article quietly points out, the "plan" (really a paper drawn up for discussion) was in 2012 and was dropped.

Do you want a party in power that thinks this is a sound idea worthy of debate in the first place at all?

Nibble · Apr 30, 2015

They give to the rich by trying to fix the national debt by cutting welfare instead of making them pay their taxes to cure the debt, which it would do many times over.

KZNSeagull · Apr 30, 2015

pb21 said:
Do you want a party in power that thinks this is a sound idea worthy of debate in the first place at all?

I would hope that any government thinks about and discusses all scenarios before trying to implement anything.

lawros left foot · Apr 30, 2015

Well, how else are they going to fund their stated intention to reduce the 45% income tax rate, to a far fairer 40%.
These millionaires are down on their uppers, you know

pb21 · Apr 30, 2015

KZNSeagull said:
I would hope that any government thinks about and discusses all scenarios before trying to implement anything.

Would you hope that any government thinks about and discusses the following policy?

Kill all the dirty poor plebs, that will save some money from the welfare budget.

Or would you think some things are ridiculous and shouldn't be thought about and/or discussed?

peterward · Apr 30, 2015

Nibble said:
Okay. It's all lies. The Tory party will do it's uptmost to see the poor of this country live with dignity.

it may or may not be, but quoting an article in the Guardian as fact is like quoting one about milliband from the mail.

Danny Alexander made the well timed accusation, wheres the proof, he should put up or shut up...... The balanced BBC piece on it, actually said it was a proposal put forward by IDS in 2012 that was rejected by the government and not implemented. as are many such departmental proposals put forward as ideas and then rejected.

Roll on 2015 and the day before the leaders debates on QT, about to lose his seat and his party facing wipeout, Danny Alexander says this is what they were going do (no Danny ot was a proposal that the government you were in rejected) and its what they plan to do now (right Danny so you're access all areas in the Tory campaign room are you?), the Guardian will happily peddle his words as it suits the pro Labour anti Tory narrative.

Its obvious, the Lib Dems (whose biggest threat in their SW marginals are the Tories) just want this to dominate the QT debate and this be the post debate headline.

Thunder Bolt · Apr 30, 2015

lawros left foot said:
Well, how else are they going to fund their stated intention to reduce the 45% income tax rate, to a far fairer 40%.
These millionaires are down on their uppers, you know

Lets be clear about the facts. In 2010, Labour raised the upper limit to 50% from 40%. When the coalition got into power, they lowered it to 45% which was still 5% higher, than Labour had set it for the 13 years that they had been in power.

soistes · Apr 30, 2015

The fact that it was in the Guardian is irrelevant -- it was part of a LibDem campaign that was reported in most of the papers.

On the one hand:
1) it's out of date, and was seen in 2012 as being IDS flying a kite, which is something that he does all the time, so there's no real evidence that this is the current Tory plan.
2) IDS is unlikely to be in charge of this area (or indeed any area) even if the Tories win.

On the other hand:
1) The Tories have yet to explain where their proposed £12bn cuts in the social security budget are going to come from.
2) As most independent commentators (like the IFS) have repeatedly pointed out, given that the biggest items in the social security budget (like pensions) won't be touched because they are electoral dynamite for the Tories, the main scope for cutting remains child benefits, JSA and tax credits, and it's pretty much a dead cert that it will end up being some combination of these. Some will be targeted at the middle classes who won't suffer much from losing their non-means tested benefits (even if it is a major erosion of one of the original Beveridge principles of the welfare state) and more importantly some will be targeted at low-waged people in work and unemployed job-seekers. So even if the Tories can correctly claim that it won't look exactly like the proposals from IDS, it might end up looking quite a bit like them.

lawros left foot · Apr 30, 2015

Thunder Bolt said:
Lets be clear about the facts. In 2010, Labour raised the upper limit to 50% from 40%. When the coalition got into power, they lowered it to 45% which was still 5% higher, than Labour had set it for the 13 years that they had been in power.

And Gideon and Dave have both statedvthey want to reduce the top rate of tax to 40% in the next Parliament

Thunder Bolt · Apr 30, 2015

lawros left foot said:
And Gideon and Dave have both statedvthey want to reduce the top rate of tax to 40% in the next Parliament

Which will take it back to the Labour level for 13 years.

Lord Bracknell · Apr 30, 2015

peterward said:
it may or may not be, but quoting an article in the Guardian as fact is like quoting one about milliband from the mail.

Danny Alexander made the well timed accusation, wheres the proof, he should put up or shut up...... The balanced BBC piece on it, actually said it was a proposal put forward by IDS in 2012 that was rejected by the government and not implemented. as are many such departmental proposals put forward as ideas and then rejected.

Roll on 2015 and the day before the leaders debates on QT, about to lose his seat and his party facing wipeout, Danny Alexander says this is what they were going do (no Danny ot was a proposal that the government you were in rejected) and its what they plan to do now (right Danny so you're access all areas in the Tory campaign room are you?), the Guardian will happily peddle his words as it suits the pro Labour anti Tory narrative.

Its obvious, the Lib Dems (whose biggest threat in their SW marginals are the Tories) just want this to dominate the QT debate and this be the post debate headline.

Maybe it was rejected by Cameron at the time ONLY because he knew that Coalition Government required the Lib Dems to agree to radical policy shifts and he knew that this one was beyond the pale.

A Tory led coalition this time round might involve partnership with a different set of politicians who are less squeamish than "Softy" Alexander.

peterward · Apr 30, 2015

pb21 said:
Here you go, this may be more to your tastes, I guess its true now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nder-claims-Tories-trying-British-people.html

"The Lib Dems revealed that in June 2012, the Quad was sent a document called 'Welfare Reform Quad Summer Reading Pack' produced by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Mr Alexander said the previously dropped plans - including limiting Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit to two children at a cost of £3,500 for a family of three - were a clear signal of where the axe would fall.

But he was forced to admit that many of the claims set out in today's document had been made public - and rejected by the Tories - in the past"

nobody denied,not even the Tories, that this was one of many proposals that were put forward to try and reduce the benefits bill, but it was roundly rejected at that time.

This is pretty desperate stuff to create a shit storm for QT from recycled public knowlege about a government proposal that was rejected 3 years ago.

The rest is speculation made up to try and join dots for public opinion, they're just hoping something sticks so they can cling on to the South West

At least the Lib Dems are going down fighting dirty, Alexanders last stand.

BLOCK F · Apr 30, 2015

All this talk about 'The Rich' is very interesting.
Who are the rich and how many of them are there?
What qualifies someone to be classed as a rich person? Is it someone who has a few million in assets or is it the chap down the road with a bigger house and car than you?
I am interested, because according to some on here, the Tories only look after the rich and don't give a toss about the 'poor'.
Well, I can't believe all those who vote Tory are rich ,otherwise,it means there are a hell of a lot of rich people in this country.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Tory plans to rob from the poor and give to the rich. Again...

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Glory hunting since 1969

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Glory hunting since 1969

Silly old bat

On fire

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page