Careless Tories!

[Geoff Parkstone]

You've been reading the Daily fail again, which delights in peddling such lies, and indeed a favourite tactic of the Tories - get people to hit down on those supposedly below them, rather than look up and wonder why the divide between rich and the rest of us widens every year, why during a financial crisis the richest1% get even richer!

I don't dispute there are some and I emphasise some, but a minority they are who seem to manage happily on benefit, no doubt whilst working cash in had at the same time, but the facts don't support your statement that there exists an "increasingly soft" benefit system " - I mean we have been over this before and whilst its a view held by a fair few people like yourself, who will quote anecdotal examples that hey know - it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that extrapolating that across the population as a whole is not a reliable way of reaching a conclusion.

Also if you had even the slightest knowledge about how the benefit system works, you'd know it was far from "soft" and indeed the Tories have been penalising people on benefits in varying ways for the past 13 years.

One area where you might have a point is the huge rise in disability payments, that is a growth area which needs looking at, though even there the outsourced agencies that assess such claims and do fitness to work tests have been doing their best to get the sick and lame back into work!

Its really not hard though to do a little research and look at benefit payments in the round - pensioners and working tax credits (which by definition go to working people) are significant.

Some interesting perspectives here. In order to contextualise them, how do you define "rich"? In terms of wealth or earnings? If so, at what level?

I tend to agree that the benefits system is a conundrum. The criteria for collecting seems to be to be tougher, but the ability/willingness to bend the system seems to be somewhat easier, perversely: or perhaps one is a function of the other.

Perhaps, more importantly, how many "benefit cheats" equate to one Zahawi. Lets set this in perspective. probably 1000 benefit cheats equal one Zahawi

[Andy_Faber]

I tend to agree that the benefits system is a conundrum. The criteria for collecting seems to be to be tougher, but the ability/willingness to bend the system seems to be somewhat easier, perversely: or perhaps one is a function of the other.

An interesting point, and a bit more grown up a perspective than that offered by Swale and his inevitable coda. I could offer an anecdote from today which backs it up but I know they get upset by anecdotes, but in summary it IS easy if one is that way inclined and if one reads one of the many 'how tos' knocking around on the internet

Nice idea to make 'a Zahawi' a unit of measure

[ramAnag]

An interesting point, and a bit more grown up a perspective than that offered by Swale and his inevitable coda. I could offer an anecdote from today which backs it up but I know they get upset by anecdotes, but in summary it IS easy if one is that way inclined and if one reads one of the many 'how tos' knocking around on the internet

Nice idea to make 'a Zahawi' a unit of measure

Lol...I’ve been called many things but...‘inevitable coda’...that’s a first! Great name calling...thinking of changing from rA to IC.

Apologies anyway, I forgot...it’s against the (your) rules for me to make any comment on Swale’s posts.

Seriously though...you have taken Swale to task on many, many occasions for calling into question the intelligence/wisdom of the electorate and yet here you are doing much the same thing with your reference to the ‘geninely thick’, beyond the reach of education and poor quality parenting.

At a simple level even you must recognise that there’s a bit of a contradiction there. At a more complex level you may have inadvertently stumbled on one of the flaws in our democracy...the electorate has to be bright, interested and knowledgeable enough to be able to pass judgement and differentiate between truth and lies.

[Andy_Faber]

Lol...I’ve been called many things but...‘inevitable coda’...that’s a first!

I forgot...it’s against the (your) rules for me to make any comment on Swale’s posts.

Seriously though...you have taken Swale to task on many, many occasions for calling into question the intelligence/wisdom of the electorate and yet here you are doing much the same thing with your reference to the ‘geninely thick’, beyond the reach of education and poor quality parenting.

At a simple level even you must recognise that there’s a bit of a contradiction there. At a more complex level you may have inadvertently stumbled on one of the flaws in our democracy...the electorate has to be bright, interested and knowledgeable enough to be able to pass judgement and differentiate between truth and lies.

I thought rear gunner had been overdone. Its not against anyone's rules to respond, but it does get tiresome when its almost guaranteed that you'll both comment, then go tee heeing to each other about the absurdity of any POV that contradicts yours.

No I haven't taken to task Swale calling into question the intelligence/wisdom of the electorate, I've called him out for calling them (all) 'thick', JUST for their Brexit vote. That's a slur no more defensible than a racist or ***ist one, and just issued because of his frustration with the outcome. I'll happily substitute my 'thick' for 'not too bright' but I'm talking about those who through no fault of their own are condemned to a hard life, NOT about a broad swathe of people who just happened to make a choice, based on the best info they had, that Swale didn't agree with.

Agreeing with some of your last point (I think), and I think the whole governing/opposing class of 2014ish should hang their heads in shame for letting the electorate make a massive decision based on such incomplete information - not lies, and there were lies on both sides, just a complete lack of objective information to support any personal decision

[ramAnag]

I thought rear gunner had been overdone. Its not against anyone's rules to respond, but it does get tiresome when its almost guaranteed that you'll both comment, then go tee heeing to each other about the absurdity of any POV that contradicts yours.

No I haven't taken to task Swale calling into question the intelligence/wisdom of the electorate, I've called him out for calling them (all) 'thick', JUST for their Brexit vote. That's a slur no more defensible than a racist or ***ist one, and just issued because of his frustration with the outcome. I'll happily substitute my 'thick' for 'not too bright' but I'm talking about those who through no fault of their own are condemned to a hard life, NOT about a broad swathe of people who just happened to make a choice, based on the best info they had, that Swale didn't agree with.

Agreeing with some of your last point (I think), and I think the whole governing/opposing class of 2014ish should hang their heads in shame for letting the electorate make a massive decision based on such incomplete information - not lies, and there were lies on both sides, just a complete lack of objective information to support any personal decision

Well it’s certainly been overdone by you and GP...no one else that I recall...but now I have to confess to some degree of shock!
I thought you’d come up with something original with the ‘inevitable coda’ jibe, but oh dear me...no. I’m now told that it’s some sort of hip hop tune by someone called Cordio. So disappointed Mr. F!

I can honestly say Swale and I never go ‘tee heeing’ to each other...in fact we’ve never even ever exchanged any pm at any time.
It just seemed absurd to me that you could repeatedly give him such a hard for questioning the electorate or, if you prefer, calling the Brexiteers ‘thick’ (and it is proving to be a pretty dumb decision) when you’ve said much the same about your ‘massive minority’.
Not sure about me being an ‘inevitable coda’...one thing’s for certain...as sure as night follows day anything remotely contentious he offers will almost inevitably be quickly followed by you aggressively challenging him.

Never mind...at least we’ve reached some sort of agreement via your closing paragraph and that’s a first for a while.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Rat a tat tat

[Andy_Faber]

Well it’s certainly been overdone by you and GP...no one else that I recall...but now I have to confess to some degree of shock!
I thought you’d come up with something original with the ‘inevitable coda’ jibe, but oh dear me...no. I’m now told that it’s some sort of hip hop tune by someone called Cordio. So disappointed Mr. F!

I can honestly say Swale and I never go ‘tee heeing’ to each other...in fact we’ve never even ever exchanged any pm at any time.
It just seemed absurd to me that you could repeatedly give him such a hard for questioning the electorate or, if you prefer, calling the Brexiteers ‘thick’ (and it is proving to be a pretty dumb decision) when you’ve said much the same about your ‘massive minority’.
Not sure about me being an ‘inevitable coda’...one thing’s for certain...as sure as night follows day anything remotely contentious he offers will almost inevitably be quickly followed by you aggressively challenging him.

Never mind...at least we’ve reached some sort of agreement via your closing paragraph and that’s a first for a while.

The coda thing was intended in its classical sense, maybe the cordio connection was subconscious as it’s a well used cut on instagram

Agreement is great but sensible discussion on points of disagreement is equally valuable, response with insults and name calling isn’t and we have too much of that

[ramAnag]

Rat a tat tat

Tee hee!

[ramAnag]

Agreement is great but sensible discussion on points of disagreement is equally valuable, response with insults and name calling isn’t and we have too much of that

Again I agree...I don’t however recall using insults and name calling. Perhaps you can show otherwise...or maybe a case of ‘physician heal thyself’. Enjoy Marrakesh.

[swaledale]

Some interesting perspectives here. In order to contextualise them, how do you define "rich"? In terms of wealth or earnings? If so, at what level?

I tend to agree that the benefits system is a conundrum. The criteria for collecting seems to be to be tougher, but the ability/willingness to bend the system seems to be somewhat easier, perversely: or perhaps one is a function of the other.

Perhaps, more importantly, how many "benefit cheats" equate to one Zahawi. Lets set this in perspective. probably 1000 benefit cheats equal one Zahawi

I will just leave this here.

Tax fraud cost the UK £20 billion in 2018-19, nine times more than benefit fraud (£2.2 billion), according to research from think tank TaxWatch, and the DWP employs 3.5 times more staff to enforce rules than HMRC.