Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

On another note I’ve been teaching Spanish as part of my job this year, tricky when I don’t speak a word...or didn’t. Been using Duolingo for 3 weeks, still very early but amazing how quickly it helps you pick things up. Also asked the wife for some CD’s for Xmas to listen to on my commute. There is a Spanish guy who works for the premises team so when I feel a bit more confident Ill try some conversational Spanish with him.
Anyway, early but that’s my new year resolution, to follow it through and at least be competent, partly to help with my job and partly because Uve always wanted to learn a language, partly because I really think learning new stuff keeps your brain fresher.
Anyone else have something they really want to learn to do?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here Diggers, but how on earth can a school let someone without the skills in a subject to teach it? I can see how someone could blag teaching something like art, PE, English etc, but not a language. I suppose if it's at Primary Level you could teach counting to ten, asking where the railway station is etc.
I presume it's not secondary school?

[super_realist]

This government tried to end housing benefit / costs for 18-21 year olds. Was that fair? ( it wasn't which is why they had to backtrack, but are relooking)

If someone has a baby and is unable to work, her overall benefits are capped because she doesn't work. Is this fair?

People who rented council properties and claimed housing benefit lost a proportion of the amount, if a family member moved out. Is this fair?

People being moved onto universal credit are seeing benefits cut just because they have been moved over, is this fair?

Housing benefit rates have been set at lower then market rent and gone up barely 1% over the recent years far below rental figures, leaving the poorest in society to struggle with rent payments. Is this fair?

Homelessness is increasing with hundreds of thousands of families on temporary accommodation, is this fair?

Now, you apparently have a decent standard of living. You may not have any experience of people with issues, but if all you can cone up with is people should get off their fat arse and help themselves, it realky makes me question your understanding of the real world.

1. How many 18-21 year olds don't still live at home?
2. Why is someone having a baby if they can't afford to bring it up? Having children isn't a right, and you shouldn't expect someone else, i.e. the taxpayer to pay for it.
3. If someone moves out of a house, clearly they need less money in that household. Why should the government support a smaller family at the same rate, especially if that person is moving out and claiming money elsewhere?
4. Why do people rely on housing benefit? How many of them could actually go out and do something for themselves?
5. Homelessness is increasing, would you rather they had no accommodation than temporary?


Is it fair that I pay tax to supplement services I don't need and will never use? As usual, you only see things from one side. What do I get for the massive amounts of tax that I pay? Not very much it seems. Including NI, Income Tax, VAT, Fuel Duty, Road Fund Licence, Council Tax etc I probably paid north of 30k last year. I'm not getting 30k worth of services per year that's for sure. So yeah, it might be tough for some people, but we're the ones paying for it and seeing precious little in return.


Yes, I have done reasonably ok, but if I can do it, why do we have so many people unable to do it for themselves? I didn't grow up privileged or wealthy. I paid my own way through university and have supported myself since I was 18, My uncle became blind at 16, became a physio, worked with the NHS for 35 years and never required help. If he can do it with such a significant obstacle in the way, why can't normal able bodied people?

Now, there may be plenty genuine people in need, of course there are and many may be unable to work through no fault of their own and as such unable to pay their own way. These people need to be supported, but it's an undeniable fact that plenty people simply expect the state to provide them with everything and blame successive governments for their failures. I'm all for a safety net, but I don't want it to be a lifestyle.

We have generations of people who have never worked through all forms of Government. I'm sure we can both agree that the Welfare state needs serious reform, it accounts for 25% of ALL our taxes, more than is spent on Health or Education and that can't be right. For those always whinging about the lack of investment in Education and Health, try looking where it is going instead and looking at whether it is necessary or whether it can be reduced to redress the balance.

You can't tell me that so much of the British population is genuinely dependent on Welfare to a degree that it accounts for 195 billion quid annually. There has to be a massive amount of lead swinging in there. Even if 10 million people are in need, which seems unlikely in a population of 68 million, that accounts to 20k per person.

[beninho]

Thought I was reading the daily mail for a moment there. You really are very right wing aren't you.

Anyway, your 1-5 answers show you have no understanding of the real world, pretty much as I expected. You carry on living in your bubble.

[Diggers]

Never understand why people assume Labour will just throw out benefits everywhere.
OK, Universal Credit. How could anyone argue that this hasn’t been farcical? Make a budget, half it, try to roll it out, be stopped by your own backbenchers who realise the damage it will do. Refund it again when you realise your incompetence.
Meant to get people back into work, a cross party (yes, all parties) committee found it did exactly the opposite, made it more difficult for people to begin work.
If you want to call Labour far left fine, but accept this govt is a far right, ideologically driven party of self interest. And, let’s be clear, they are utterly incompetent.
If that’s your value set, that’s entirely your choice. Certainly not mine though, hopefully won’t be my kids.

[super_realist]

Not right wing, but if you think 100% pf people on Welfare actually require it then I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you. That's all I'm saying. Our welfare state supports FAR MORE than the number of people who actually have no other choice.

We spend £195bn on Welfare per year in this country BEFORE borrowing. You cannot believe all that  money goes to people who have no other choice than to be on Welfare, or perhaps you are happy to pay taxes for people to be idle?

There simply has to be a significant proportion in the UK who simply aren't trying hard enough.

If things like Universal Credit etc aren't working, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a country spending more on welfare than on health or education. Something needs to be resolved about this. It can't be right.

[Diggers]

Universal credit is meant to address what you are talking about, it’s this Govts solution to the the problems you present, how on earth can you say that’s not a massive part of the conversation. That would be completely bizarre.

[beninho]

When you say welfare and use the figures, whats included in the amount? Do you know the breakdown of benefits?

Universal crefit, while in theory could be a good idea, but its a mess. For a start, how can you pay housing costs in arrears, when rent is paid in advance, it will lead to evictions. If you read about the increase in arrears already since uc was brought in. Its also been known to impact people on disability benefits and the older people compared to the previous payments.

Oh, and I do think there are people claiming who are pushing it, but I believe its a minority rather then the majority. But what would I know, its only something I work in...

[kwinigolfer]

Spurs turned into Spurs when they were being talked about as title contenders. Liverpool look very good though, with Salah "winning" penalties they will be hard to stop. Man City have no replacement for Fernandinho and its killing them. I'd have no issues with Liverpool winning the league.

Chairboys on a run of 3 defeats in a row, and dropping back nearer the relegation xone. Need to stop the rot soon.

Fernandinho back in the saddle today, vs Saints - can't see a much better chance for Citeh to get back on track. Except I hope Saints thrash them, despite the soft-centre they look to be taking to battle.

[super_realist]

When you say welfare and use the figures, whats included in the amount? Do you know the breakdown of benefits?

Universal crefit, while in theory could be a good idea, but its a mess. For a start, how can you pay housing costs in arrears, when rent is paid in advance, it will lead to evictions. If you read about the increase in arrears already since uc was brought in. Its also been known to impact people on disability benefits and the older people compared to the previous payments.

Oh, and I do think there are people claiming who are pushing it, but I believe its a minority rather then the majority. But what would I know, its only something I work in...

I don't know the breakdown, but 25% of our taxes go to the welfare bill.
As I made perfectly clear yesterday, it's necessary for those who need it, but I don't buy for a minute that 100% of welfare recipients are justified in getting it.
It's amazing that people moan about the tiny amount we put into defence, transport, environment, culture, housing, business etc but don't bat an eyelid at the eye watering amount we put into the welfare budget.

[super_realist]

Universal credit is meant to address what you are talking about, it’s this Govts solution to the the problems you present, how on earth can you say that’s not a massive part of the conversation. That would be completely bizarre.

I meant I'm not talking about the mechanics of how it works, or whether it even does, I'm talking about the vast sums involved. No government has EVER got welfare right and people are always going to suffer. My point is that we are spending far too much on it and it needs a massive reform, and that starts by sorting the lead swingers out to protect those who are genuinely in need of welfare through no fault of their own, who genuinely cannot work and who cannot survive without it. I can't see that 100% of welfare recipients are in that bracket.

[Diggers]

So just to clarify, you’ve got an amount from somewhere, and without being interested in the mechanics of how (and therefore how much) is spent or where it’s spent, you’ve decided that’s its far too much. That’s what you’re saying?
If you want to bring some useful data, we spend less than France (calculated as a percentage of GDPR) on social protection and the same as Germany. We are pretty much in line with our peers, so they clearly have it all wrong as well.
Why don't these people think to talk to you first, Super. You could put them all straight so easily...

[beninho]

Realist, where would you cut it?

Would you decrease housing benefits / housing costs, to be even further below the market rent?

Would you cut WTC, so that people who work do not get assistance towards their childcare costs?

Would you cut disability benefits for people medically unable to work?

Would you cut JSA for the unemployed?

[pedro]

Put it the ther way: would you spend the double on welfare if you could? Is the recipe “send more money”? Because clearly, what is spent today, whether too little or too much, doesn’t solve the problems.

[Diggers]

What should happen is that it goes quickly to the most vulnerable when they need it. Support people to get out of a bad situation, not make that situation worse...which is what universal credit seems to do.
The idea of a simplified system is sound (and needs to be applied to the NHS, transport etc), however doing it on the cheap, and with the idea of forcing people into work to improve your employment numbers, whatever the consequences, is not the way to go about solving the problem.

[beninho]

Happy new year all. Lets hope you have a good one, and if you don't lets hope you have someone their for you.

[super_realist]

So just to clarify, you’ve got an amount from somewhere, and without being interested in the mechanics of how (and therefore how much) is spent or where it’s spent, you’ve decided that’s its far too much. That’s what you’re saying?
If you want to bring some useful data, we spend less than France (calculated as a percentage of GDPR) on social protection and the same as Germany. We are pretty much in line with our peers, so they clearly have it all wrong as well.
Why don't these people think to talk to you first, Super. You could put them all straight so easily...

Jesus Diggers, I'm saying we spend 175 BILLION on Welfare per year. I don't believe that 100% of people on benefit require it. Therefore, we need to do something to persuade these malingerers who are taking money away from worthy causes to get out and work, rather than use the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I know people who have done this in the town where I grew up, I imagine most of us know someone who has lived a life like that. We've got MP's like Kate Osamar living in council houses for gods sake, taking home 70k plus, getting expenses and PROUD of living in a council house subsidised by the taxpayer. How can that be right? They should be living in a house that THEY pay for. Surely this is taking housing away from someone who actually deserves it?

Pointing out that we are the same as France and Germany isn't particularly helpful, just because they might be our peer group, we are in the top 5-6 countries spending this much on welfare of developed countries. Why aim to spend as much on welfare as they do? They probably do have it wrong too, but then again they do many things better than we do like health and education. We aren't referred to as Inselaffe on the continent for nothing (Island Apes).


It's very trite and short sighted for you to claim that I could merely just "talk to them" and make everything all right, well if it was that easy, why haven't you solved the Brexit issue? You seem very vocal and condemnatory of all that is going on there? Why didn't they just speak to you? The problem would be resolved at a stroke wouldn't it? Why don't they talk to you about benefits? You seem to think you know it all about that too.

[super_realist]

Realist, where would you cut it?

Would you decrease housing benefits / housing costs, to be even further below the market rent?

Would you cut WTC, so that people who work do not get assistance towards their childcare costs?

Would you cut disability benefits for people medically unable to work?

Would you cut JSA for the unemployed?

JESUS EFFING CHRIST. I have repeatedly stated that it should NOT be taken away from people who ACTUALLY NEED IT. Why is that so hard to understand?

I do not think that the Welfare State is run remotely efficiently, I don't think all recipients of Welfare require it. So we need to sort out those who need it from those who are simply too idle.


You seem keen to support anyone who wants to be on benefits to just get it, regardless of whether they need to be on it. Which is more warped, maintaining the status quo, or getting those off benefits who shouldn't be in receipt of them?
Now I don't know what % of recipients that is, but we're talking about a shedload of money on Welfare, so even if that is 10%, that's a whopping 17.5 billion, not an insignificant sum for education or health, but lets not upset the leadswingers and get them off their fat obese arses eh?

[beninho]

So, you think we should cut the welfare spending, but have no idea how, or what because, you have the idea that a large chunk of people are fraudulently claiming benefits, though you cant say how much. And you think people on benefits are all fat.

Rantings and ramblings of a madman.

[beninho]

There is a problem which needs tightening up though, and thats self employed especially taxi drivers. The creative accouting which brings a net income down to just below the tax rate is dodgy as. But this is the same for a lot of big businesses who use tax loopholes. Tax evasion is a big problem, more so then the welfare budget.

[Diggers]

So just to clarify, you’ve got an amount from somewhere, and without being interested in the mechanics of how (and therefore how much) is spent or where it’s spent, you’ve decided that’s its far too much. That’s what you’re saying?
If you want to bring some useful data, we spend less than France (calculated as a percentage of GDPR) on social protection and the same as Germany. We are pretty much in line with our peers, so they clearly have it all wrong as well.
Why don't these people think to talk to you first, Super. You could put them all straight so easily...

Jesus Diggers, I'm saying we spend 175 BILLION on Welfare per year. I don't believe that 100% of people on benefit require it. Therefore, we need to do something to persuade these malingerers who are taking money away from worthy causes to get out and work, rather than use the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I know people who have done this in the town where I grew up, I imagine most of us know someone who has lived a life like that. We've got MP's like Kate Osamar living in council houses for gods sake, taking home 70k plus, getting expenses and PROUD of living in a council house subsidised by the taxpayer. How can that be right? They should be living in a house that THEY pay for. Surely this is taking housing away from someone who actually deserves it?

Pointing out that we are the same as France and Germany isn't particularly helpful, just because they might be our peer group, we are in the top 5-6 countries spending this much on welfare of developed countries. Why aim to spend as much on welfare as they do? They probably do have it wrong too, but then again they do many things better than we do like health and education. We aren't referred to as Inselaffe on the continent for nothing (Island Apes).


It's very trite and short sighted for you to claim that I could merely just "talk to them" and make everything all right, well if it was that easy, why haven't you solved the Brexit issue? You seem very vocal and condemnatory of all that is going on there? Why didn't they just speak to you? The problem would be resolved at a stroke wouldn't it? Why don't they talk to you about benefits? You seem to think you know it all about that too.

I seriously hope the company you are meant to work for doesn’t let you near any kind of budget control.

[McLaren]

Super

Do you mean too many people are receiving benefits by bending the current rules or do you mean that the current system in general makes provisions for too many types of individual?

Because it is well known that the rate of fraudulent benefits claims is very low, and in any case it would never be possible to totally eradicate all unworthy claims without harming those that really need help.  Look at it like you would side effects of a drug, there will always be some harm but you would never try and reduce this to zero or no drugs would ever make it to market.

If you are talking about the second case, the government providing benefits to too wide a range of people then the same argument might also be used.  It would be better to provide to one group too many than one group too few. The carrot and stick theory of benefits has also been well debunked at this stage meaning taking away help to encourage the poor to pull themselves up the ladder is a pointless exercise.  Just look at something you would consider an utter joke; "the American dream".

Where would you like to cut back on benefits?  Here is what I believe to be a pretty comprehensive list of the currently available benefits in the Uk, which ones would you like to see go?

Free health care
legal aid
Attendance Allowance
Armed Forces Independence Payment
Bereavement Allowance
Bereavement Payment
Bereavement Support Payment
Blind Persons Allowance
Budgeting Loans
Carer’s Benefits
Child Benefit
Child Tax Credit
Cold Weather Payment
Council Tax Reduction
Disability Living Allowance
Disabled Facilities Grants
Discretionary Assistance Fund
Discretionary Housing Payment
Employment and Support Allowance
Funeral Payments
Free School Meals
Guardian’s Allowance
Healthy Start Food Vouchers
Housing Benefit
Incapacity Benefit
Income Support
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Local Housing Allowance
Local Welfare Assistance
Maternity Allowance
Pension Credit
Personal Independence Payment 
Reduced Earnings Allowance
Severe Disability Premium
State Pension
Statutory Adoption Pay
Statutory Maternity Pay
Statutory Paternity Pay
Statutory Sick Pay
Support For Mortgage Interest 
Sure Start Maternity Grant
Tax Credits
Universal Credit
War Pensions Scheme
Warm Homes Discount
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Winter Fuel Payment
Working Tax Credit

[dynamark]

Digs and Ben we could happily drop half of that list.
Folk need to take responsibility for themselves and their families not rely on everyone lese to fund their lack of effort.

[Diggers]

What half of the list, Dyna?
You want people back in work, how do you then support a system implemented by the party that you support, that actually makes it harder to do just that? There the view of Tories, not just Labour MPs.
You said yourself Ben was in the know, what I don’t think you realised then was he was actually very critical of your right wing government (and that is what they are), that he placed most of blame with them.

[beninho]

Dyna, I respect your view, you want to cut benefits for people, I'm guessing with the aim of forcing them into some sort of employment. I don't agree but I have no issues with your views. Your right wing, im centre left, we will disagree on lots of things. At least you have given a view on what you would do.

[super_realist]

Super

Do you mean too many people are receiving benefits by bending the current rules or do you mean that the current system in general makes provisions for too many types of individual?

Because it is well known that the rate of fraudulent benefits claims is very low, and in any case it would never be possible to totally eradicate all unworthy claims without harming those that really need help.  Look at it like you would side effects of a drug, there will always be some harm but you would never try and reduce this to zero or no drugs would ever make it to market.

If you are talking about the second case, the government providing benefits to too wide a range of people then the same argument might also be used.  It would be better to provide to one group too many than one group too few. The carrot and stick theory of benefits has also been well debunked at this stage meaning taking away help to encourage the poor to pull themselves up the ladder is a pointless exercise.  Just look at something you would consider an utter joke; "the American dream".

Where would you like to cut back on benefits?  Here is what I believe to be a pretty comprehensive list of the currently available benefits in the Uk, which ones would you like to see go?

Free health care
legal aid
Attendance Allowance
Armed Forces Independence Payment
Bereavement Allowance
Bereavement Payment
Bereavement Support Payment
Blind Persons Allowance
Budgeting Loans
Carer’s Benefits
Child Benefit
Child Tax Credit
Cold Weather Payment
Council Tax Reduction
Disability Living Allowance
Disabled Facilities Grants
Discretionary Assistance Fund
Discretionary Housing Payment
Employment and Support Allowance
Funeral Payments
Free School Meals
Guardian’s Allowance
Healthy Start Food Vouchers
Housing Benefit
Incapacity Benefit
Income Support
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Local Housing Allowance
Local Welfare Assistance
Maternity Allowance
Pension Credit
Personal Independence Payment 
Reduced Earnings Allowance
Severe Disability Premium
State Pension
Statutory Adoption Pay
Statutory Maternity Pay
Statutory Paternity Pay
Statutory Sick Pay
Support For Mortgage Interest 
Sure Start Maternity Grant
Tax Credits
Universal Credit
War Pensions Scheme
Warm Homes Discount
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Winter Fuel Payment
Working Tax Credit

Mac, I'm not necessarily talking about outright fraud, I'm talking about people playing the system to their benefit when they could easily be out at work.
However, even if the rate is low, when the total expenditure is so large even a small percentage means a MASSIVE amount of money going to waste that could be put to better use.
Glad to see you can use Google (shame you never use a spellchecker), but like Benhino, I DIDN'T SAY I WANTED TO SEE ANY BENEFIT GO, I said I wanted to see people who SHOULD NOT BE GETTING BENEFITS FROM GETTING THEM.
How on earth did you get a degree, let alone an MSc with such lamentable comprehension skills?

[super_realist]

There is a problem which needs tightening up though, and thats self employed especially taxi drivers. The creative accouting which brings a net income down to just below the tax rate is dodgy as. But this is the same for a lot of big businesses who use tax loopholes. Tax evasion is a big problem, more so then the welfare budget.

Funny that you claim that I can't say how much money from Welfare is going to the undeserving, and then you throw out an unsubstantiated claim that tax AVOIDANCE (a perfectly LEGAL method of accounting) is a bigger problem than the Welfare state.

Why on earth are you crying about bloody taxi drivers and sole traders, but perfectly happy to allow people to play the welfare state?
Which is more immoral? Someone acting 100% within the law, or someone claiming welfare because they're too idle to work?

[super_realist]

So just to clarify, you’ve got an amount from somewhere, and without being interested in the mechanics of how (and therefore how much) is spent or where it’s spent, you’ve decided that’s its far too much. That’s what you’re saying?
If you want to bring some useful data, we spend less than France (calculated as a percentage of GDPR) on social protection and the same as Germany. We are pretty much in line with our peers, so they clearly have it all wrong as well.
Why don't these people think to talk to you first, Super. You could put them all straight so easily...

Jesus Diggers, I'm saying we spend 175 BILLION on Welfare per year. I don't believe that 100% of people on benefit require it. Therefore, we need to do something to persuade these malingerers who are taking money away from worthy causes to get out and work, rather than use the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I know people who have done this in the town where I grew up, I imagine most of us know someone who has lived a life like that. We've got MP's like Kate Osamar living in council houses for gods sake, taking home 70k plus, getting expenses and PROUD of living in a council house subsidised by the taxpayer. How can that be right? They should be living in a house that THEY pay for. Surely this is taking housing away from someone who actually deserves it?

Pointing out that we are the same as France and Germany isn't particularly helpful, just because they might be our peer group, we are in the top 5-6 countries spending this much on welfare of developed countries. Why aim to spend as much on welfare as they do? They probably do have it wrong too, but then again they do many things better than we do like health and education. We aren't referred to as Inselaffe on the continent for nothing (Island Apes).


It's very trite and short sighted for you to claim that I could merely just "talk to them" and make everything all right, well if it was that easy, why haven't you solved the Brexit issue? You seem very vocal and condemnatory of all that is going on there? Why didn't they just speak to you? The problem would be resolved at a stroke wouldn't it? Why don't they talk to you about benefits? You seem to think you know it all about that too.

I seriously hope the company you are meant to work for doesn’t let you near any kind of budget control.

Yeah, Why would I want a business/country to be run efficiently with funds ONLY going to the areas where it is required with minimal wastage

[beninho]

My point, which you don't seem to grasp is, that self employed people, use means to reduce net income to below the tax level, then claim housing benefit, ctc, wtc. I think this is an issue, and there is a wider issue with tax avoidance in general. Perfectly legal as you say but I believe it needs looking into as it is costing the country in general, I read 2bn is the figure claimed.

[Diggers]

So just to clarify, you’ve got an amount from somewhere, and without being interested in the mechanics of how (and therefore how much) is spent or where it’s spent, you’ve decided that’s its far too much. That’s what you’re saying?
If you want to bring some useful data, we spend less than France (calculated as a percentage of GDPR) on social protection and the same as Germany. We are pretty much in line with our peers, so they clearly have it all wrong as well.
Why don't these people think to talk to you first, Super. You could put them all straight so easily...

Jesus Diggers, I'm saying we spend 175 BILLION on Welfare per year. I don't believe that 100% of people on benefit require it. Therefore, we need to do something to persuade these malingerers who are taking money away from worthy causes to get out and work, rather than use the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I know people who have done this in the town where I grew up, I imagine most of us know someone who has lived a life like that. We've got MP's like Kate Osamar living in council houses for gods sake, taking home 70k plus, getting expenses and PROUD of living in a council house subsidised by the taxpayer. How can that be right? They should be living in a house that THEY pay for. Surely this is taking housing away from someone who actually deserves it?

Pointing out that we are the same as France and Germany isn't particularly helpful, just because they might be our peer group, we are in the top 5-6 countries spending this much on welfare of developed countries. Why aim to spend as much on welfare as they do? They probably do have it wrong too, but then again they do many things better than we do like health and education. We aren't referred to as Inselaffe on the continent for nothing (Island Apes).


It's very trite and short sighted for you to claim that I could merely just "talk to them" and make everything all right, well if it was that easy, why haven't you solved the Brexit issue? You seem very vocal and condemnatory of all that is going on there? Why didn't they just speak to you? The problem would be resolved at a stroke wouldn't it? Why don't they talk to you about benefits? You seem to think you know it all about that too.

I seriously hope the company you are meant to work for doesn’t let you near any kind of budget control.

Yeah, Why would I want a business/country to be run efficiently with funds ONLY going to the areas where it is required with minimal wastage

Whilst not actually having a clue what areas they need to go or wanting to consider the mechanics that actually perform the task. Because that actually involves some level of effort and consideration. Your main driver would be simply disliking the people the money goes to, which is an issue as you hate everyone.

[Diggers]

Chris Grayling, can one of you Tories right wingers explain to me how this idiot is still in a job? He’s now appointed a ferry contract to a company that has never ran a ferry service, lucky it won’t be at a critical time eh! But hang on, it’s OK, because he’s closely investigated their ability to perform. Just the same way he closely examined the new rail timetable that caused, and is still causing, chaos...then proceeded to blame everyone else.
In a cabinet of utter muppets, his incompetence still shines through, quite an achievement really. Probably due a knighthood.

[Davie]

Diggers - I'm at work at the moment so can't search too extensively for a link to verify this - but I've read that this is quite a common occurrence in the shipping (and aviation) industry. Apparently it is quite common to set up a new company (therefore no company history) for this sort of contract. Just because the new company name has no experience in the industry doesn't mean that the people behind it have no history. This "new" company also doesn't "own" and ferries but again this isn't unusual in the industry as most vessels are leased anyway.

Not arguing with you that Grayling is a jerk and quite often makes large mistakes, but I think this time you have fallen victim of a hysterical media outburst which, if they had checked their facts like any reasonable journalist would, would be no story

[Diggers]

I think you are cutting him far too much slack. From what I’ve seen existing companies are very bemused as to why a decision like this would be made at such a crucial time. It’s not a situation that requires a cheapest option, promise the world with no experience to back it up, solution. Very few companies own their own transport, same with the train rolling stock, it’s all leased...which is part of the whole lack of long term accountability issue we have.
I wouldn’t trust the bloke to refuel my car properly.

[Diggers]

Olly becomes only the second Man Utd manager to win his first 4 games, along with Sir Matt. Everything going right for him, Lukaku on for 40 seconds and scores after a keeper howler, Rashford playing like a guy who could be compared with Mbappe.
Clearly a favourable set of fixtures but still pretty impressive, perhaps even a clean sheet tonight (1 minute left). Be interesting to see how they go against Spurs but they’ll certainly have a bit of confidence. Jose who?

[pedro]

The Gunnars.

[super_realist]

So just to clarify, you’ve got an amount from somewhere, and without being interested in the mechanics of how (and therefore how much) is spent or where it’s spent, you’ve decided that’s its far too much. That’s what you’re saying?
If you want to bring some useful data, we spend less than France (calculated as a percentage of GDPR) on social protection and the same as Germany. We are pretty much in line with our peers, so they clearly have it all wrong as well.
Why don't these people think to talk to you first, Super. You could put them all straight so easily...

Jesus Diggers, I'm saying we spend 175 BILLION on Welfare per year. I don't believe that 100% of people on benefit require it. Therefore, we need to do something to persuade these malingerers who are taking money away from worthy causes to get out and work, rather than use the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I know people who have done this in the town where I grew up, I imagine most of us know someone who has lived a life like that. We've got MP's like Kate Osamar living in council houses for gods sake, taking home 70k plus, getting expenses and PROUD of living in a council house subsidised by the taxpayer. How can that be right? They should be living in a house that THEY pay for. Surely this is taking housing away from someone who actually deserves it?

Pointing out that we are the same as France and Germany isn't particularly helpful, just because they might be our peer group, we are in the top 5-6 countries spending this much on welfare of developed countries. Why aim to spend as much on welfare as they do? They probably do have it wrong too, but then again they do many things better than we do like health and education. We aren't referred to as Inselaffe on the continent for nothing (Island Apes).


It's very trite and short sighted for you to claim that I could merely just "talk to them" and make everything all right, well if it was that easy, why haven't you solved the Brexit issue? You seem very vocal and condemnatory of all that is going on there? Why didn't they just speak to you? The problem would be resolved at a stroke wouldn't it? Why don't they talk to you about benefits? You seem to think you know it all about that too.

I seriously hope the company you are meant to work for doesn’t let you near any kind of budget control.

Yeah, Why would I want a business/country to be run efficiently with funds ONLY going to the areas where it is required with minimal wastage

Whilst not actually having a clue what areas they need to go or wanting to consider the mechanics that actually perform the task. Because that actually involves some level of effort and consideration. Your main driver would be simply disliking the people the money goes to, which is an issue as you hate everyone.

Diggers, are you as dense as Beninho and Mac? I have said we need to stop people getting benefits who are capable of going out and getting a job. I know who some of these people are, don't you?

Conversely, you seem to be happy to hand out benefits for anyone who wants them, as if that's a good way to run a business if you want to use that analogy. You're probably happy to have migrants cross the entire continent of Europe, come here and get benefits too, when we have no direct responsibility for them.

[beninho]

Stop people getting benefits who are capable of getting a job. So you think we should stop JSA? Thats the benefit paid to people capable of working and job seeking. Lets take away the 73.10pw. That will show them.

You've now brought refugees into the mix. You not a fan of them voming to the uk to ve placed in NASS accommodation and the £36.95pw they receive.

[raycastleunited]

I think you are cutting him far too much slack. From what I’ve seen existing companies are very bemused as to why a decision like this would be made at such a crucial time. It’s not a situation that requires a cheapest option, promise the world with no experience to back it up, solution. Very few companies own their own transport, same with the train rolling stock, it’s all leased...which is part of the whole lack of long term accountability issue we have.
I wouldn’t trust the bloke to refuel my car properly.

The bit in bold demonstrates you have no understanding of the financing structures and commercial rationale when it comes to lease v buy, it has nothing to do with long term accountability. But to be fair, why would you? You're not an expert in this area, it's unreasonable to expect you to understand the technical details. Yet for some reason we expect politicians to make all these complex decisions. Like Grayling, who has spent his whole career in media and politics so clearly has no background in transport. What I imagine (and hope) is that cabinet ministers do not get involved in rail timetables and ferry contracts, because they have no expertise to provide, instead this is handled by civil servants (who aren't labour or tory) who have some knowledge. Of course the civil servants usually Frak it up because that's the public sector, but at least they can blame it on the politician.

[JAS]

So just to clarify, you’ve got an amount from somewhere, and without being interested in the mechanics of how (and therefore how much) is spent or where it’s spent, you’ve decided that’s its far too much. That’s what you’re saying?
If you want to bring some useful data, we spend less than France (calculated as a percentage of GDPR) on social protection and the same as Germany. We are pretty much in line with our peers, so they clearly have it all wrong as well.
Why don't these people think to talk to you first, Super. You could put them all straight so easily...

Jesus Diggers, I'm saying we spend 175 BILLION on Welfare per year. I don't believe that 100% of people on benefit require it. Therefore, we need to do something to persuade these malingerers who are taking money away from worthy causes to get out and work, rather than use the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I know people who have done this in the town where I grew up, I imagine most of us know someone who has lived a life like that. We've got MP's like Kate Osamar living in council houses for gods sake, taking home 70k plus, getting expenses and PROUD of living in a council house subsidised by the taxpayer. How can that be right? They should be living in a house that THEY pay for. Surely this is taking housing away from someone who actually deserves it?

Pointing out that we are the same as France and Germany isn't particularly helpful, just because they might be our peer group, we are in the top 5-6 countries spending this much on welfare of developed countries. Why aim to spend as much on welfare as they do? They probably do have it wrong too, but then again they do many things better than we do like health and education. We aren't referred to as Inselaffe on the continent for nothing (Island Apes).


It's very trite and short sighted for you to claim that I could merely just "talk to them" and make everything all right, well if it was that easy, why haven't you solved the Brexit issue? You seem very vocal and condemnatory of all that is going on there? Why didn't they just speak to you? The problem would be resolved at a stroke wouldn't it? Why don't they talk to you about benefits? You seem to think you know it all about that too.

I seriously hope the company you are meant to work for doesn’t let you near any kind of budget control.

Yeah, Why would I want a business/country to be run efficiently with funds ONLY going to the areas where it is required with minimal wastage

Whilst not actually having a clue what areas they need to go or wanting to consider the mechanics that actually perform the task. Because that actually involves some level of effort and consideration. Your main driver would be simply disliking the people the money goes to, which is an issue as you hate everyone.

Diggers, are you as dense as Beninho and Mac? I have said we need to stop people getting benefits who are capable of going out and getting a job. I know who some of these people are, don't you?

Conversely, you seem to be happy to hand out benefits for anyone who wants them, as if that's a good way to run a business if you want to use that analogy. You're probably happy to have migrants cross the entire continent of Europe, come here and get benefits too, when we have no direct responsibility for them.

Look, nobody likes malingerers draining the state, that’s a given. To say that those of a more left of center persuasion are ok frittering away money on scroungers is political debate of the stupidest kind. Behind the faux Daily Mail outrage about benefit scroungers though, what would it take to resolve and are there bigger issues that need addressing first??

Here’s some things to ponder...
1. Benefits scroungers cost the state how much?? Corporate Tax evasion costs the state how much??
2. Number of stable secure jobs in the Uk at a wage/salary high enough not to require subsidising by some form of state aid in 2010, repeat question for 2019.
3. Crime stats (petty crime to fund starvation avoidance) in 2010 compared to 2018??
I could go on but I think you get the gist. The way the country is being run is an unsustainable busted flush. Even in a healthy economy there will still be those requiring a safety net from time to time. What this shower that run the country have managed to do is demonise anyone requiring help, whilst enabling their mates to dip their snouts in the trough to bleed the state dry.
As the old saying goes....The beauty of a Tory Government is that those earning in excess of £100k a year manage to convince most of those earning around £20-£30k a year that all the country’s financial ills are caused by those earning less than £10k a year. I.e. the greedy telling the gullible that it’s the stupid to blame.

[Diggers]

I think you are cutting him far too much slack. From what I’ve seen existing companies are very bemused as to why a decision like this would be made at such a crucial time. It’s not a situation that requires a cheapest option, promise the world with no experience to back it up, solution. Very few companies own their own transport, same with the train rolling stock, it’s all leased...which is part of the whole lack of long term accountability issue we have.
I wouldn’t trust the bloke to refuel my car properly.

The bit in bold demonstrates you have no understanding of the financing structures and commercial rationale when it comes to lease v buy, it has nothing to do with long term accountability. But to be fair, why would you? You're not an expert in this area, it's unreasonable to expect you to understand the technical details. Yet for some reason we expect politicians to make all these complex decisions. Like Grayling, who has spent his whole career in media and politics so clearly has no background in transport. What I imagine (and hope) is that cabinet ministers do not get involved in rail timetables and ferry contracts, because they have no expertise to provide, instead this is handled by civil servants (who aren't labour or tory) who have some knowledge. Of course the civil servants usually Frak it up because that's the public sector, but at least they can blame it on the politician.

As it goes I spent 20 years negotiating lease or buy deals in my former life, I understand the financial implications, but they will obviously vary according to the situation and industry. I stand by the fact that leased private sector rolling stock (usually on a lease from overseas) is not a great model for a rail industry, then again I don't think a private rail network is the right way to go.
Politicians take the credit for anything that goes well, ultimately they get paid to do a job they are willing to take and have to be held accountable for their departments. You don't have to know the minutiae of how an industry works to understand how decision making can be effective, what CEO of any big firm would. They have staff in place, but the right staff tasked with giving you information you can act on.
Look at when these contracts went to tender, it was clearly a rush job, that doesn't filter down to being the fault of the civil service.

[McLaren]

Super it may just be my low comprehension skills but I am still not sure how you would cut the welfare budget. ben asked you about JSA allowance which by definition is a benefit for people that could work, would you condone a government getting rid of this benefit?

What other specific examples can you come up with that you would like to get rid off?

[JAS]

Super it may just be my low comprehension skills but I am still not sure how you would cut the welfare budget. ben asked you about JSA allowance which by definition is a benefit for people that could work, would you condone a government getting rid of this benefit?

What other specific examples can you come up with that you would like to get rid off?

At the risk of sounding a bit Keynesian, if you make a choice of having a decade of austerity you’ve made a choice to contract your economy, if you contract your economy then the need for welfare spending goes UP not down. To just cut welfare anyway in that situation is the very epitome of Dickensian rub the noses of the poor in the dirt economics and should have no place in a modern civilised society, to have that in the world’s 5th biggest capitalist economy should be a source of shame!!

[McLaren]

Jas

You are spot on but sadly that sort of logic is yet to sink in for the right. Or maybe it has and they just want to punish certain groups of people.

[raycastleunited]

Look, nobody likes malingerers draining the state, that’s a given. To say that those of a more left of center persuasion are ok frittering away money on scroungers is political debate of the stupidest kind. Behind the faux Daily Mail outrage about benefit scroungers though, what would it take to resolve and are there bigger issues that need addressing first??

Here’s some things to ponder...
1. Benefits scroungers cost the state how much?? Corporate Tax evasion costs the state how much??
2. Number of stable secure jobs in the Uk at a wage/salary high enough not to require subsidising by some form of state aid in 2010, repeat question for 2019.
3. Crime stats (petty crime to fund starvation avoidance) in 2010 compared to 2018??
I could go on but I think you get the gist. The way the country is being run is an unsustainable busted flush. Even in a healthy economy there will still be those requiring a safety net from time to time. What this shower that run the country have managed to do is demonise anyone requiring help, whilst enabling their mates to dip their snouts in the trough to bleed the state dry.
As the old saying goes....The beauty of a Tory Government is that those earning in excess of £100k a year manage to convince most of those earning around £20-£30k a year that all the country’s financial ills are caused by those earning less than £10k a year. I.e. the greedy telling the gullible that it’s the stupid to blame.

Generally agree.

Not sure about point 3 though. Petty crime is to fund iphones, sky tv and drugs!

[dynamark]

Guys I'm not over famiiiar with a lot of the benefit system partly because I and folk around me havn;t had to get involved .Definite not a tory supporter just a regular hard working citizen but these we could drop.
Anything to do with maternity/paternity -it a choice
Winter fuel and warm homes
Simplify disability benefits -the most abused area by far and I do see that every day
Free school meals
Legal aid has virtually gone anyway
Bereavement -whats that about
Food vouchers
Pension credit -what is that
Mortgage interest help -no way
That's just a brief resume but not politically very likely any of it.
The mentality of someone else ie.the state will look after me has to stop.
We have generally super healthcare system and a state pension system.Along with some help with housing initially and unemployment support(ie to get back to work) and some disabled benefits system well monitored thats about all we really need.No excuse in this country now for not earning a living if you can

[Roller_Coaster]

Look, nobody likes malingerers draining the state, that’s a given. To say that those of a more left of center persuasion are ok frittering away money on scroungers is political debate of the stupidest kind. Behind the faux Daily Mail outrage about benefit scroungers though, what would it take to resolve and are there bigger issues that need addressing first??

Here’s some things to ponder...
1. Benefits scroungers cost the state how much?? Corporate Tax evasion costs the state how much??
2. Number of stable secure jobs in the Uk at a wage/salary high enough not to require subsidising by some form of state aid in 2010, repeat question for 2019.
3. Crime stats (petty crime to fund starvation avoidance) in 2010 compared to 2018??
I could go on but I think you get the gist. The way the country is being run is an unsustainable busted flush. Even in a healthy economy there will still be those requiring a safety net from time to time. What this shower that run the country have managed to do is demonise anyone requiring help, whilst enabling their mates to dip their snouts in the trough to bleed the state dry.
As the old saying goes....The beauty of a Tory Government is that those earning in excess of £100k a year manage to convince most of those earning around £20-£30k a year that all the country’s financial ills are caused by those earning less than £10k a year. I.e. the greedy telling the gullible that it’s the stupid to blame.

Generally agree.

Not sure about point 3 though. Petty crime is to fund iphones, sky tv and drugs!

Not entirely fair.

Samsung do pretty decent phones too.

[Diggers]

Guys I'm not over famiiiar with a lot of the benefit system partly because I and folk around me havn;t had to get involved .Definite not a tory supporter just a regular hard working citizen but these we could drop.
Anything to do with maternity/paternity -it a choice
Winter fuel and warm homes
Simplify disability benefits -the most abused area by far and I do see that every day
Free school meals
Legal aid has virtually gone anyway
Bereavement -whats that about
Food vouchers
Pension credit -what is that
Mortgage interest help -no way
That's just a brief resume but not politically very likely any of it.
The mentality of someone else ie.the state will look after me has to stop.
We have generally super healthcare system and a state pension system.Along with some help with housing initially and unemployment support(ie to get back to work) and some disabled benefits system well monitored thats about all we really need.No excuse in this country now for not earning a living if you can

Dropping free school meals would be a disaster. Firstly, you'd be amazed at how many kids come to school hungry. My school has a reasonably affluent catchment but even we have some in that situation, I know of other teachers at schools who provide breakfasts out of their own pockets. Plenty of data to support how lack of nutrition has a massive impact on learning. Unless you accept that the kids should suffer as a consequence of their parents.
Free school meal registration is also the main indicator for Pupil Premium funding, which is the money the govt provides to support kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, so that is money that is currently coming into the school system to support kids that need help...bearing in mind this should result in a net benefit to society at the end of their school education, as again all the data shows that the best bang for your buck comes at the start of a child's education.
I think you are right about something needing to change, just wrong about what these changes are.

[navyblueshorts]

I think you are cutting him far too much slack. From what I’ve seen existing companies are very bemused as to why a decision like this would be made at such a crucial time. It’s not a situation that requires a cheapest option, promise the world with no experience to back it up, solution. Very few companies own their own transport, same with the train rolling stock, it’s all leased...which is part of the whole lack of long term accountability issue we have.
I wouldn’t trust the bloke to refuel my car properly.

The bit in bold demonstrates you have no understanding of the financing structures and commercial rationale when it comes to lease v buy, it has nothing to do with long term accountability. But to be fair, why would you? You're not an expert in this area, it's unreasonable to expect you to understand the technical details. Yet for some reason we expect politicians to make all these complex decisions. Like Grayling, who has spent his whole career in media and politics so clearly has no background in transport. What I imagine (and hope) is that cabinet ministers do not get involved in rail timetables and ferry contracts, because they have no expertise to provide, instead this is handled by civil servants (who aren't labour or tory) who have some knowledge. Of course the civil servants usually Frak it up because that's the public sector, but at least they can blame it on the politician.

Ah yes, because the private sector is soooo good . Dogma at its worst.

[Diggers]

I think you are cutting him far too much slack. From what I’ve seen existing companies are very bemused as to why a decision like this would be made at such a crucial time. It’s not a situation that requires a cheapest option, promise the world with no experience to back it up, solution. Very few companies own their own transport, same with the train rolling stock, it’s all leased...which is part of the whole lack of long term accountability issue we have.
I wouldn’t trust the bloke to refuel my car properly.

The bit in bold demonstrates you have no understanding of the financing structures and commercial rationale when it comes to lease v buy, it has nothing to do with long term accountability. But to be fair, why would you? You're not an expert in this area, it's unreasonable to expect you to understand the technical details. Yet for some reason we expect politicians to make all these complex decisions. Like Grayling, who has spent his whole career in media and politics so clearly has no background in transport. What I imagine (and hope) is that cabinet ministers do not get involved in rail timetables and ferry contracts, because they have no expertise to provide, instead this is handled by civil servants (who aren't labour or tory) who have some knowledge. Of course the civil servants usually Frak it up because that's the public sector, but at least they can blame it on the politician.

Ah yes, because the private sector is soooo good . Dogma at its worst.

It's really easy to make a public sector service look bad...cut the funding. Then cut it some more, then do it again. Then privatise and subsidise...and end up spending more money on a crap service. How on earth we got to a situation where private companies mange our prisons is beyond me (could even be a Blair idea), how on earth can you be looking to give that kind of responsibility to companies looking to make a profit. I'm sure, just like our new potential ferry service, that some of them hadn't ran prisons before, but their proposal looked good (cheap) on paper.
We have overseas companies running our water supplies - whilst being found guilty of deliberately polluting waste straight back into the system and being fined huge amounts as a result - making millions for their shareholders. Great logic.

[super_realist]

I think you are cutting him far too much slack. From what I’ve seen existing companies are very bemused as to why a decision like this would be made at such a crucial time. It’s not a situation that requires a cheapest option, promise the world with no experience to back it up, solution. Very few companies own their own transport, same with the train rolling stock, it’s all leased...which is part of the whole lack of long term accountability issue we have.
I wouldn’t trust the bloke to refuel my car properly.

The bit in bold demonstrates you have no understanding of the financing structures and commercial rationale when it comes to lease v buy, it has nothing to do with long term accountability. But to be fair, why would you? You're not an expert in this area, it's unreasonable to expect you to understand the technical details. Yet for some reason we expect politicians to make all these complex decisions. Like Grayling, who has spent his whole career in media and politics so clearly has no background in transport. What I imagine (and hope) is that cabinet ministers do not get involved in rail timetables and ferry contracts, because they have no expertise to provide, instead this is handled by civil servants (who aren't labour or tory) who have some knowledge. Of course the civil servants usually Frak it up because that's the public sector, but at least they can blame it on the politician.

Ah yes, because the private sector is soooo good . Dogma at its worst.

It's really easy to make a public sector service look bad...cut the funding. Then cut it some more, then do it again. Then privatise and subsidise...and end up spending more money on a crap service. How on earth we got to a situation where private companies mange our prisons is beyond me (could even be a Blair idea), how on earth can you be looking to give that kind of responsibility to companies looking to make a profit. I'm sure, just like our new potential ferry service, that some of them hadn't ran prisons before, but their proposal looked good (cheap) on paper.
We have overseas companies running our water supplies - whilst being found guilty of deliberately polluting waste straight back into the system and being fined huge amounts as a result - making millions for their shareholders. Great logic.
 

Yeah, because British Gas, British Telecom, British Steel, British Rail etc were all fantastic under Public Ownership weren't they? Public companies have zero incentive to innovate, provide a good service or be efficient. Our modern day equivalent is the NHS. Doing brilliantly isn't it? No.

[kwinigolfer]

Looks like Kyle Walker is on Pep's sh1t list . . . . . . . .
Not sure I get that, especially with Kompany playing and the need for speed to cover for him. Should be interesting.

[navyblueshorts]

I think you are cutting him far too much slack. From what I’ve seen existing companies are very bemused as to why a decision like this would be made at such a crucial time. It’s not a situation that requires a cheapest option, promise the world with no experience to back it up, solution. Very few companies own their own transport, same with the train rolling stock, it’s all leased...which is part of the whole lack of long term accountability issue we have.
I wouldn’t trust the bloke to refuel my car properly.

The bit in bold demonstrates you have no understanding of the financing structures and commercial rationale when it comes to lease v buy, it has nothing to do with long term accountability. But to be fair, why would you? You're not an expert in this area, it's unreasonable to expect you to understand the technical details. Yet for some reason we expect politicians to make all these complex decisions. Like Grayling, who has spent his whole career in media and politics so clearly has no background in transport. What I imagine (and hope) is that cabinet ministers do not get involved in rail timetables and ferry contracts, because they have no expertise to provide, instead this is handled by civil servants (who aren't labour or tory) who have some knowledge. Of course the civil servants usually Frak it up because that's the public sector, but at least they can blame it on the politician.

Ah yes, because the private sector is soooo good . Dogma at its worst.

It's really easy to make a public sector service look bad...cut the funding. Then cut it some more, then do it again. Then privatise and subsidise...and end up spending more money on a crap service. How on earth we got to a situation where private companies mange our prisons is beyond me (could even be a Blair idea), how on earth can you be looking to give that kind of responsibility to companies looking to make a profit. I'm sure, just like our new potential ferry service, that some of them hadn't ran prisons before, but their proposal looked good (cheap) on paper.
We have overseas companies running our water supplies - whilst being found guilty of deliberately polluting waste straight back into the system and being fined huge amounts as a result - making millions for their shareholders. Great logic.
 

Yeah, because British Gas, British Telecom, British Steel, British Rail etc were all fantastic under Public Ownership weren't they? Public companies have zero incentive to innovate, provide a good service or be efficient. Our modern day equivalent is the NHS. Doing brilliantly isn't it? No.

There's no a priori reason for publicly owned business to be poor and private to be exemplars of how to do it. In fact, there's examples of schidt in both realms. It's simply dogma, which I find chuffing annoying, to state that public = bad while private = good. It's bollox peddled by far too many people.

[Sponsored content]