[Closed] A truly sad day for British society...

Yes, some "facts" that I had not heard of before.

But be careful, is someone finds being called princess and buttercup offensive then we can be sure that the consistency of the hammer will be maintained.

You accuse other people of being nasty but the number of mean-spirited, judgmental assumptions just in that little bit is quite astonishing.

According to a doc, there is no such thing as executive stress

Anyway, Im not here to decipher other peoples lack of reading skill - nor explain how some people, may just [i]possibly[/i] abuse benefit systems.

I would probably be interested in a discussion on how to best go about ommiting the genuine scroungers from the welfare state without hitting the genuine claimants though. Because from what I can tell on here, the general concensus is to just keep increasing the budget at all costs.
Maybe that is possible and maybe we should. Sounds expensive though.

Thestabiliser - when you read a story like yours it does put it all into perspective, my best wishes to your folks.

Well I was paraphrasing Professor Sir Michael Marmot thm, have a read, it's quite interesting.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/whitehallII/pdf/wii-booklet
Executives by definition have more control of their lives and therefore mental and physical health than those in low status jobs.
Obviously some people feel stressed in their high status jobs, I do sometimes. But I could make changes if it started to damage my health.

Of the people that go into high level politics, the percentage of sociopathic personalities is far higher than the population at large.
It goes beyond not caring.

Sounds like a fact badnews - source?

If you look at the cost of welfare year on year you'd have to say its expanding

And how much of that is spent on pensions and other spending related to the ageing population?

Ok some something a bit closer to reality on stress!

Osborne is in a mess. Growth is slowing v forecasts and productivity is mixed at best which is bad news for wages and for tax revenues. Welfare reform is going pear shaped as a policy after the tax credit fiasco and the subsequent decision on disability benefits which is both economically questionable and politically idiotic - where are all the headlines?

And taxes? Ok they are a buggers middle and largely incomprehensible but still higher rate tax payers pay more of the total income tax than in 2010. Some friends eh? And heaven forbid if you own property or are a bank!!

Zero DR. Pensions are different from welfare.

economically questionable and politically idiotic

Finally, something I can agree with.

Sounds like a u-turn on the cuts is in the pipeline now though?

True plus more missed targets. Old austerity George will be spending more that he is earning for some time yet!!

teamhurtmore - Member
Zero DR. Pensions are different from welfare.
POSTED 10 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Different pots of money (oh and one is basically an unfunded ponzi scheme)

Is sugar-tits ok?

As a top rate taxpayer, hasn't she been persecuted enough? It seems they're the only minority that it's acceptable to be prejudiced against. It's really, like, SOOOOOOOO not fair!

I'd just like to apologise for being simply beastly, and letting the reality of the lives of horrid poor and disabled people intrude on the middleclasstrackworld bubble.

As penance I'll go and start a thread about what buy-to-let mortgage, or the dilemma of which large German company car to choose?

Zero DR. Pensions are different from welfare.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/04/welfare-tax-statements-prime-minister-pension

What does zero DR mean?

austerity George

One is capped (welfare) the other isn't (pensions). Treated differently.

Welfare spending to fall to 25-year low, warns IFS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33009399

The IFS said protecting pensioner benefits meant cuts of almost 10% over two years to the welfare budget.
That would take welfare spending as a share of GDP to its lowest since 1990.
The government has committed to taking £12bn out of social security spending by 2018.
Welfare spending currently amounts to £220bn annually. That includes £95bn on the state pension and universal pensioner benefits, such as the winter fuel allowance, free bus travel and television licences for the over-75s.
The Conservatives have promised those areas of welfare spending will remain protected throughout the life of the current parliament.
But the remaining £125bn of welfare spending could be subject to freezes or cuts.
Unprotected welfare benefits include child benefit, housing and disability benefits and jobseekers' allowance.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

Welfare covers a number of benefits, and many people don’t realise that the largest amount is actually spent on pensions at £108 billion.

My name's Paul and I'm a 40% taxpayer. But only just. I'll try not to get too vulgar when spending my £11 a month extra. As jamba and stumpyjon have said though, very rich people/companies have options. If you keep squeezing them, a significant number will avoid harder/go elsewhere, especially when you've got near neighbours who will tout for their patronage. You can pass judgement on this all you want, but it'll still happen. ISTR that the City accounts for something like 10% of the Treasury's tax take. So, are Britain's poor better or worse off for it's presence? Take squeezing the rich to its logical conclusion and you get communism, which has a much poorer track record than capitalism for lifting people out of poverty, because of that basic human instinct to do the best for oneself and one's family.
I get that it's a sliding scale, and there are successful examples of sliding it further left, like Nordic socialism. FWIW I think that cutting disability benefits at the same time as higher rate taxes is wrong, but the general direction of travel of shrinking the deficit is a good thing. Demonising anyone who takes a different viewpoint seems to be an increasing problem in modern politics, from the US elections to the Scots' indyref. Maybe it's the decivilising influence of the internet?

Maybe it's the decivilising effect of living an increasingly unequal and unjust society, which seeks to blame, then punish the poor and disadvantaged for the mistakes of the 'elite', who have got off Scott free

Maybe it's really that black and white?

But haven't the poor and disadvantaged reaped the benefits of the "elite"'s actions in better times? Are the poor and disadvantaged worse off if the "elite" are punished, ie banks allowed to go bust etc? That's the judgement the Govt have to make. Is it even a valid comparison? By dint of being poor and disadvantaged, their mistakes are less likely to have a knock on effect on others, whereas with great power comes great responsibility.
I also find the scapegoating of the poor and disadvantaged distasteful btw, but it's not just the Govt, it's the print media and even TV, with stuff like benefit street. Plays on the old confirmation bias that everyone else has it easier than you!

How many higher rate taxpayers have ever been made homeless by government policy?

Get some bloody perspective.
People are dying because of welfare cuts.

according to bbc website i ll be £6.67 better off every month .

it is a disgrace that disabled people are going to be worse off because of it .

G O and his pals have no morals whatsoever .

Why are people not in the streets is beyond me , i think you need a training course with french farmers .

Context is everything... Maybe making disabled benefits more streamlined in the right palces is appropriate but there will always be collateral damage which will result in deaths, increased suffering and hardship within a section of society who are already having it hard enough compared to the majority of others..howver it's the context this is done in..MP's kept their payrise and economists today all agreed that it was the top 10% wealthiest who 'made the most' out of this budget...so quite obviously these cuts are not equal across all social boundaries.

Simple fact is...it's choices. Government are choosing to cut benefits (knowing full well the consequences) when they could quite easily choose to leave them alone and raise the money elsewhere. They have chosen to hit some of the most disadvantaged...how you perceive that is obviously up to you. But if you know anything about politics you'll also know if was simply choice - not necessity - to hit the most disadvantaged ( As has been demonstrated by Tories own backbenches telling them to choose not to do it)..

Since old Gideon seems to be missing all his targets and the amount of borrowing keeps going up and up along with a noticeable decrease in public services offered for the (increased) money we put in are we going to admit he's made a pigs ear of the finances yet? I thought they told us they were the safe bet and labour would mess things up?

It's quite obvious that this mob had thought they'd spouted enough guff that people seemed to believe, scared enough people into not taking a risk (ha,ha) and diverted enough attention on to the scrounging immigrants/disabled/jobless/homeless/low paid that they could do exactly as they liked. Seems there might actually be some resistance and fight left after all!

...the general direction of travel of shrinking the deficit is a good thing...

I agree with this, but am also deeply shocked by how much this government has borrowed.

I saw a breakdown of where my tax goes the other day - the amount servicing the [b]interest[/b] on the national debt is horrendous. It's more than is spent on defence!

I'd be interested to know what constitutes 'welfare' too. I can't imagine running job centres costs more than a modern army, navy and air force.

This isn't the same image as the one on my tax return, but is certainly in the same ballpark.

[img] [/img]

Pm-j, iirc the 'welfare' part of that diagram includes public sector pensions which in effect were paid for/into by public sector employees a generation ago: although 'ponzi scheme' has a slight whiff of of sour grapes, i agree that the funding is rather different and stupidly short-termist compared to a 'normal' pension, and anyway maybe better off breaking public sector pension expenditure into the relevant areas and including them in the spend eg health service pensions into health spending, teachers in education etc. . I had a similar government funded [s]conservative party mailshot[/s] helpful tax summary in the post a couple of years ago.

[url= http://https://fullfact.org/economy/what-you-need-know-about-treasurys-tax-statement/ ]Full Fact sauce from 2014 here.[/url]

Probably quite a few, if they lose their jobs. Being a higher rate taxpayer doesn't make you rich (my definition of that being someone who isn't immediately in trouble if they don't get paid at the end of the month!).

IDS resigns over the cuts.

First major resignation under Cameron, will be interesting, however the fact he is an outer is probably a factor too.

IDS resigns over cuts?

Do you hear that?

That's the sound of irony being brutally murdered.

It appears that all government activity now revolves around who gets to be big chief big bollocks in the Tory party.

Hurray for democracy!

Julian thanks for the good news. Public sector pensions paid for. Phew all the scare stories about they way they are funded just nonsense. We can all sleep easy now

Thm, where did I say all that?

Damn misread it. Still a Ponzi scheme then.

Demonising anyone who takes a different viewpoint seems to be an increasing problem in modern politics

Uh, that Ponzi scheme comes up again and again in your posts and yet still no one does anything about it. Along with "theft": you should really report these crimes.

[edit] Wandering off my post pointing out the unhelpfulness of the tax summary graphic and that state, private and public sector pensions all come from different places and different times. In doing so, I thought 'stupidly short term ist' was probably a more helpful description than what if it was in the legal sense a Ponzi scheme, would be a phenomenally large scale pan-government pan-generational financial crime that has inexplicably never been brought to justice.

Perhaps for the purposes of balance you could also suggest a more accurate description and to-approved term of reference for tendering/contracting of health than 'privatisation' since you (in the true legal factual sense correctly!) point out that it isn't.

THM, my scheme was funded by the members but various governments stole the money put in to spend as they wished. The money has been paid in yet we got blamed after it had been spent and now needs to be replaced.

The cynic in me thinks IDS is resigning solely to damage Osbourne and the "In" campaign re Brexit. By kicking Osbourne and Cameron right now he's helping Brexit, a cause he is championing and nailing his colours to Boris' mast as he's next in line if they pull off Brexit.

I honestly don't beleive IDS gives a toss about the disabled.

In the absense of an opposition, the entire countries political system is now devalued to the extent that it's been reduced to a bunch of posh boys, all having a bun fight about who gets to be the next big swinging dick.

And it doesn't matter about what the consequences are of the outcome, because for the top percentile there are no consequences. Not for them. There are for the rest of us, of course. But not for them

So ... Meh... who cares? It's all just a jolly big game, isn't it?

Actually..... Using an apparent new concern for the plight of the disabled (yeah..... right) as a front to further your own political agenda surely marks a new low even for the Tory party.

They truly are a bunch of utter ****s!!!

See the other thread, IDS has resigned to campaign for Leave. Osbourne is tied to Remain as is Cameron, Remain is a sinking ship.

Hats off to the elements of the press that have managed to link cuts to the disabled as being the result of tax cuts to the middle classes. The headlines don't play as well if they read "Tories honour commitments to increase NHS spending by scaling back welfare budgets"

@binners the lack of an opposition is the fault of the Labour MPs who decided to "broaden the debate" by allowing Corbyn to stand and to those that voted for him. Thats the beauty of democracy, they got what they voted for.

jambalaya - Member
See the other thread, IDS has resigned to campaign for Leave. Osbourne is tied to Remain as is Cameron, Remain is a sinking ship.
Hats off to the elements of the press that have managed to link cuts to the disabled as being the result of tax cuts to the middle classes.

Not according to his own resignation letter...
[url=In full: Iain Duncan Smith resignation letter http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35848891 ]bbc link/url]

As many have long suspected:

- cuts politically motivated. Tick
- ideologically driven. Tick
- economically necessary. Nah (ref IDS comparison of young family vs wealthy pensioners)
- All in it Together... Blown out of the water

Hats off to the elements of the press that have managed to link cuts to the disabled as being the result of tax cuts to the middle classes. The headlines don't play as well if they read "Tories honour commitments to increase NHS spending by scaling back welfare budgets"

Hats off to jamba for using the words "Tories" and "honour" in the same sentence.

Actually I sort of agree - the public voted to be ****ed, and they have been. In spades. That's life below stairs for you.

Jambalaya there was no mention of the NHS in his resignation letter, why on earth would the press link it.?

IDS plainly states that tax breaks for the rich are indefensible and that austerity is ideological rather than good for the country.....

Besides which no one believes the Tories are doing anything other than dismantling the NHS, even the Tory graph admits they've broken it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/12198069/AandE-now-overwhelmed-says-top-doc-as-he-calls-for-army-of-medics-to-be-sent-in.html

Jambalaya tory fanboi
Drinking from the poisoned cup
Writing facts like fairy tales
You really couldn't make it up

Suckling from the demon's teat
Mind and soul awash with greed
Writhing debauched, entranced, ecstatic
Drunk and high on Satan's seed

Prostrate before the foulest alter
Vows taken, dedication whole
Wealth and death and no compassion
For lower tax he sold his soul

Take me up oh wondrous leaders
To join you in your golden beds
Feasting on the poor and needy
Midst lusty trysts with porcine heads

Deluded, rapturous believer
Sacrifice the lesser man
Some of us were born more equal
To take all things since time began

Who will stop these pompous pirates?
Lacking will and weak of chin
Pathetic mewling grasping monsters
Braying waltzing, utter sin

😆

Man, reading through the rest of this thread is just depressing.
I'm starting to think that further cuts to the disabled are absolutely necessary if only to serve to piss off binners to a point where his head actually explodes.

I thought they told us they were the safe bet and labour would mess things

Stop for one minute to imagine where we could be if labour had continued to run the figures. I'm certain of nothing in politics other than being convinced that labour budgeting is suicide.

I wish peole would stop thinking about numbers and focus on the peole concerneds....who gives a shit about what Labour might or might not do to the economy.. Right now the peole in charge are making nasty decisions (as evidenced by the backlash of their own MP's)...

Slimjim ...you want to kill people to upset Binners? What a lovely set of values you have...

Shame that the one thing you are certain of in politics is nonsense slimjim.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

And hilariously hypocritical that Osbourne is now blaming global financial conditions (as well as Labour, obviously) for failing to meet virtually all of his targets for balancing the books when they've spent the last few years castigating Labour for happening to be in power when a worldwide financial meltdown happened.

Slimjim ...you want to kill people to upset Binners?

You misread (again). I want to kill people in order to kill binners.
A necessary evil. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten

Who's being demonised?

Jambalaya tory fanboi
Drinking from the poisoned cup
Writing facts like fairy tales
You really couldn't make it up

Suckling from the demon's teat
Mind and soul awash with greed
Writhing debauched, entranced, ecstatic
Drunk and high on Satan's seed

Prostrate before the foulest alter
Vows taken, dedication whole
Wealth and death and no compassion
For lower tax he sold his soul

Take me up oh wondrous leaders
To join you in your golden beds
Feasting on the poor and needy
Midst lusty trysts with porcine heads

Deluded, rapturous believer
Sacrifice the lesser man
Some of us were born more equal
To take all things since time began

Who will stop these pompous pirates?
Lacking will and weak of chin
Pathetic mewling grasping monsters
Braying waltzing, utter sin

I thought it was a pretty generous appraisal of your average common or garden tory boy 🙂

Shame that the one thing you are certain of in politics is nonsense slimjim.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

And hilariously hypocritical that Osbourne is now blaming global financial conditions (as well as Labour, obviously) for failing to meet virtually all of his targets for balancing the books when they've spent the last few years castigating Labour for happening to be in power when a worldwide financial meltdown happened.

In the interests of balance, might that be attributable to them tending to take over from a high spending Labour administration? Saying "Osbourne has borrowed more than Brown" is factually correct but very misleading, classic politicking!

Hasn't it just been reported that as well as losing half of the £45b used in the bank bailout (after promising us a profit)he has just lost a further £22b in the rbs thing?

No wonder he's ramping up the cuts and greasing the palms of the elite

What a useless pillock.. IBS' resignation might just be enough of a story to cover it up though

Slimbo - as I'm not presently disabled* why not kill two birds with one stone by hacking one of my legs off, or even both, then leaving me to bleed to death? Thus ensuring not only my untimely, grizzly demise, but as at the time I would technically be a burden on the higher rate taxpayer, a saving to the state?

It's a win/win!

* people who ride with me regularly may dispute this

Maybe some things need demonising. This government has caused deaths and a great deal of stress/misery for the most vulnerable people in our society. If you don't think this is worthy of demonising what would it take airtragic?

This guy demonising the government too?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/graeme-ellis-tory-campaigner-quits-party-and-sabotages-website-over-disability-cuts-a6935371.html

You know, the disabled lifelong Tory supporter and activist who's quit the party in disgust. Perhaps he should moderate his views and be more understanding of others' viewpoints in case he offends anyone?

It's funny how those on the right are very quick to complain about PC and how easily offended we are, until they get a bit of criticism and all of a sudden it's out of order.

Savage murderous bastards don't like being called names. It makes them have a sad

[i][b]You misread (again)[/b]. I want to kill people in order to kill binners.
A necessary evil. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten[/i]

@slimjim - where did I misread you last time? Genuine question, not a reactive post. I've only made three posts in this thread and two didn't mention other forum posts...

Stop for one minute to imagine where we could be if labour had continued to run the figures. I'm certain of nothing in politics other than being convinced that labour budgeting is suicide.

So Gideon fails and proves he isn't very good at running the figures therefore showing his way of doing things doesn't work yet the people who did a reasonable job with the figures over a decent amount of time are not to be trusted even though there's no way of knowing if their alternative might be better?

Right.

It's pretty clear this was a classic case of a budget that started from a point of wanting to give tax cuts to businesses and the middle classes.
It then worked out how it could pay for those tax cuts.
It worked out that cutting welfare was the best way to do this.
It then remembered how poeple stopped them cutting tax credits like they wanted to, because tax credits affect many voters.
It then looked at how many disabled people vote...

My wife is a higher rate taxpayer, we do well for ourselves financially and consider ourselves rich. The fact that we aren't very financially sensible and blow most of our money on bikes and furniture for our house is our fault.
If one of us lost our job we would be screwed, but we would only have ourselves to blame, as we have been lucky enough to be financially independent. It has been our choice how we spend the money.

A disabled person is very much less likely to be so lucky, due in no small part to the inherent discrimination in the system. Through no fault of their own, many disabled people have no choice but to be dependent upon the state, as there is no other way for them to earn money.

Just because Gideon has decided to reward higher rate taxpayers by punishing the weak does not make higher rate tax payers evil.
At the same time, higher rate taxpayers should probably not go on about how hard done by they are, because they are not. They have the luxury of choice.

So Gideon fails

Subjective. He didn't hit his quoted targets, but I'm pretty sure the economic shower of shit he inherited was even worse than first predicted. Britains economy has been fairing favourably in comparison to the majority of the rest of the world, so subjectively, you could argue that Gideon has done well all things considered.
IMO it's too easy to just spout 'he missed his target he missed his target!'

On balance, I think the cuts to disability have been too deep and too fast. We should indeed be taking better care of the vulnerable. Including *sigh* binners

Well, Steve Crabb is the new minister, the coming man and a modern John Major, great appointment.

Yes Steve Crabb- some are touting him as a possible next leader.

In a way this cock up may benefit the Tories- they'll realise G.O is a no go for the next leader. G.O cannot win the next election!

Subjective.

Nope - entirely 100% objective.

IMO it's too easy to just spout 'he missed his target he missed his target!'

Yep. Because he ... errr ... missed his targets - you know, the ones he made for himself. If it's OK to miss them because of <insert excuse here>, what was the point of having them in the first place?

On balance, I think the cuts to disability have been too deep and too fast.

So, just for the record, how deep and fast do you think disability benefits should be cut?

Sideways move for Steven Crabb?

So slimjim, what exactly would he have to do for you to agree that he's failed?

@slimjim...you can't have it both ways...first you say..

[i]Stop for one minute to imagine where we could be if labour had continued to run the figures. I'm certain of nothing in politics other than being convinced that labour budgeting is suicide.[/i]

Then you say..

[i]He didn't hit his quoted targets, but I'm pretty sure the economic shower of shit he inherited was even worse than first predicted. IMO it's too easy to just spout 'he missed his target he missed his target!'[/i]

So you think missing missing targets is ok and that it's the world econonmy that has been the problem. (Which is also what many economists agree was the issue with the ecomonic problems for Labour i.e. not their fault, world economy issues at play)

What exactly is it that you think Labour would do that's so different from the excuses you make for Conservative?

Appears to me that your a typical voter who has a (strong) allegiance to a political party without thinking critically what's going on.

Salad_dodger- nicely done 🙂

G.O cannot win the next election!

He is unelectable. But so is Bozo.

Grum, Yunki, I'm not saying don't criticise. I'm saying don't demonise. I think the Government's actions are worthy of grown-up criticism. As soon as you do this:

Savage murderous bastards don't like being called names. It makes them have a sad

You sound like this:[img] &f=1[/img]

And lose credibility. Withdrawing funding isn't really the definition of murder, is it? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Un were/are savage, murdering bastards. David Cameron isn't. Didn't Michael Foot ask people to stop calling the Thatcher Govt fascist, in case they didn't recognise the real thing? FWIW I have no problem with criticism or "political correctness", it's mostly just not being a dick, isn't it?

@slimjim...you can't have it both ways...first you say..

Stop for one minute to imagine where we could be if labour had continued to run the figures. I'm certain of nothing in politics other than being convinced that labour budgeting is suicide.

Then you say..

He didn't hit his quoted targets, but I'm pretty sure the economic shower of shit he inherited was even worse than first predicted. IMO it's too easy to just spout 'he missed his target he missed his target!'

So you think missing missing targets is ok and that it's the world econonmy that has been the problem. (Which is also what many economists agree was the issue with the ecomonic problems for Labour i.e. not their fault, world economy issues at play)

What exactly is it that you think Labour would do that's so different from the excuses you make for Conservative?

Appears to me that your a typical voter who has a (strong) allegiance to a political party without thinking critically what's going on.

It's a question of priorities; Labour went into the 2010 election looking to cut more slowly, something Osborne had to do halfway into his first term anyway. They would probably have focused slightly more on taxation rather than reducing spending. Both parties are ideologically hamstrung, but in different directions. Would the deficit and hence debt be higher if Labour had won in 2010? Would it matter? Difficult question!

We don't and never will know how a Labour government would have faired over the same period.

What we do know is that Osbourne and his mates have failed.

Gideons failure (apart from misunderstanding the root of the problem like most western leaders of all political persuasions) has been to be caught out by the independent forecasters who set the parameters for the budgets. They were too optimistic last time resulting in GO's overconfidence. Now they had to revise down the growth assumptions (still relatively strong mind) and so the Treasury has to re do all the sums and Gideon seemed caught out hence the stupidity re disability payments.

Perhaps now the austerity BS could be put to rest. Relaxing fiscal policy stance is one reason why we are doing relatively better than similar countries. Not that he would admit it.

Appears to me that your a typical voter who has a (strong) allegiance to a political party without thinking critically what's going on.

I'm not defending out of allegiance, I'm offering a different perspective because it seems to me that most are predispositioned to disagree and spout hate no matter the outcome they are actually facing.
Targets are just targets, and I think some leeway is fine on this occasion as the inherited situation was simply so dire.
I cannot buy into the argument of spending the country out of trouble - it's an absurd principal. As is growing the state in the name of providing 'tax paying jobs'.

Out of interest, has anyone on any of these threads ever read the opinions offered, considered them, and changed their mind as a result?

How can he justify the continued destruction of the public services if he stops banging the austerity drum? They won the election by frightening people in to believing the clap trap they were spouting so they can't very well change script.

I cannot buy into the argument of spending the country out of trouble - it's an absurd principal. As is growing the state in the name of providing 'tax paying jobs'.

Then I would respectfully suggest that you educate yourself regarding some fairly basic economic principles before continuing with this thread, and certainly before venturing near a voting booth.

Which script. They abandoned the tough stuff yonks ago

Very good advice Dr as this thread shows

Ok, will do.

However, I would respectfully counter that both points you have paraphrased are ones I have heard argued on radio/tv/pub on a fairly regular basis.

Which script.

The script that says "we have to cut benefits to vulnerable people or the country will go down the plughole".

Oh I see, thanks

Pleasure 🙂