Harsh reality of spending cuts

Private Joe Walker oddly came to mind hearing your interview with the Chancellor Of The Exchequer. The Cockney spiv in the Dads Army series. The late James Beck played him. But I was reminded it was the whole of society that suffered in the Blitz of Great Britain during wartime and there were "life style choices" I assume made back then. How to get on in life. Those who refuse to work for a living have always been with us.
I had brief experience work in Job Centres and more myself signing on at such places - looking for work I stress. So interests declared - I would love to know how George Osborne is going to succeed with the proposal where so many others have failed?
Your own question Nick put it nicely and I am not sure it was convincingly answered by the Chancellor.
The money wont be there? What does that mean, Nick? Or rather, Mr Osborne? And if it is not there - the budget for those so identified as having made specific life style choices - what will happen next? What "life style choices" will then be made?
I will watch this one as best I can

One way of cutting the welfare budget is to work with buisness to stop the influx of migrant works like the 21,000 that pick 650,000 tonnes of strawberries every year and get the benefit claiments to do the work instead

this is the reality of what is to come. if you look at MR osbornes face above, it indicates the true nature and reality of these cuts. of course those at the top of the income bracket (the millionaire cabinet/donors/big business and wealthy CONservative voters, they will be alright jack. while the saftey net of welfare will be indiscriminately cut leaving many who are already struggling, facing meltdown. watch how those who are already weathy continue to prosper and avoid paying large amounts of tax while millions of lower earners suffer. lets call it the bob diamond era.

If you want to get unemployed people back into work, provide proper support and encouragement by hiring competent and knowledgeable people to work in job centres!

I have been looking for work this year, and every visit to the 'nice but dim' muppets who call themselves 'advisors' but have no advice to offer leaves me depressed and discouraged. I want someone who's actively working on my behalf, who knows what I can do and what I'm looking for and is out there looking, like an actor's or author's agent. Not someone sadly lacking between the ears who does not even understand their own system let alone what goes on in other trades and professions.

I am convinced that I'll get back into work DESPITE the local job centre, not with their help... because they have none to proffer.

Go for it.

They need to get people back to work.

And following on from the previous thread.... the Swedes cut welfare spending and allowed unemployment to rise form nil to ten percent.

So if pdavies is out there I do support some of the things Sweden has done in the past.

It's a great time to be a tory...

As a welfare rights worker - i advise people about benefits - i object to Osborne/Cameron's continued demonisation of people on benefits. They are just putting the message out there that people on benefits are scroungers when this is not the case.
Getting people back into work takes alot of government investment - where will the money come from for return to work programmes? Or are we expected to become £65 per week entrepreneurs?
A far bigger problem to society are the selfish tax dodgers who don't want to pay their fair share.
Why is there no mention of the estimated £60billion in tax avoidance, or the £billions per annum in unclaimed benefits?

"We're all in it together", What plans does Mr Osborne have to share the pain of the cuts by all of us to resolve the deficit? All we hear is the easy choices of the poor are to be targeted. We are told that if the tax avoidance and tax evasion loop holes were tightened up then there would be no need for any cuts. Will Mr Osborne pursue this with the same enthusiasm. He says he will target those who make the decision not to work but to rely on benefits. Does he see the similarity of this idea to those fortunate to live off unearned income from their investments, how will he get them to share the pain?

lifestyle choice? dear god theres always be people like that even with this move but as usual they will hit the poorest with this nonsense but of course they dont care its a government that within weeks has run out of ideas and now is just setting about dismantling the welfare state,next the NHS

Ashamed to be british with this terrible inept government in charge.

This rhetoric is all very well but most of those who have made living off the state a work of art have large families,so just how does he think he can stop or lower their benefits?
No even he can let children suffer,trouble is that money meant for the children goes to fags,booze and drugs in very many cases.All the realistic means of controlling this would be deemed "against their human rights".

I am due to become a pensioner early next year, an easy way to save on pensions is to bring in Euthanasia. At least this would help to stop me worrying about how i'm going to end up surviving on only state benefits. I've no doubt that the "sword of Damaclese" will be swung sooner or later on all pensioners. So much for promises, Mrs Thatcher would be proud.

The global recovery may be slowing faster than previously thought, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development warned today as it cut its growth forecasts for the second half of the year.
"It is not yet clear whether the loss of momentum in the recovery is temporary … or whether it signals greater underlying weaknesses in private spending at a time when public support is being removed."
So it would be obvious and the message is clear. Steady as she goes. No hard and fast cuts. Protect employment at all costs. Well thought out efficiency savings combined with fairness. “we are all in this together” means everyone paying their fair share of tax. Maybe tax increases for those that can afford it. Definitely target tax havens (no mention of this from the coalition). Also why reduce hmrc numbers who investigate tax evasion and avoidance of high net worth individuals and businesses. This sends the wrong message to the public and simply reaffirmss negative views of tory philosophyy and policy.

I know the government is keen on getting everybody into work. One question..WHAT WORK? Firms are shutting down, shops are closing, industry is suffering..where do you go to find work?

Well no big surprises then. What do you expect from a pampered schoolboy as chancellor? he hasn't a clue how people on low incomes live and what is more to the point he doesn't care. The deficit over 4 years could easily be met by making the banks pay back allm the money they borrowed at a similar rate that they charge their customers. But that of course would have his wealthy city pals screaming blue murder.
The lunatic economics that governments subscribe to would be laughable except for the rising numbers out of work and those on minimum pay in non jobs.
Creating jobs should be the first and most important responsibility of the government,it should look after ALL of society on an equitable basis and not just the few. The more people in work the greater the tax take. The less in work, the less the tax take, the less money in circulation, the less goods purchased, reduced profits or business leading to yes more unemployment. This just another rerun of the "nasty party" with the conivance of the "sitting on the fence" all word and no substance party.

The welfare / benefits system should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Many seem to have forgotten that. It was right to cap housing benefit and it is right to stop out of work benefits entirely for those who are fit but unwilling to try to find or accept employment.

Most of us don't have an issue paying our taxes for those who lose their income and need help whilst they find another position. We don't expect to support those taking us for a ride.

Personally I think benefits shouldn't be paid in cash but in vouchers or prepaid cards only usable for groceries, fuel and housing. With many people using cards to pay for shopping, the prepaid card idea wouldn't have any particular stigma to upset the liberals.

So yet again the vulnerable are targeted and yet Osbourne fails to mention the £70bn that goes missing in tax evasion. Oh yes, of course, most of the tax evaders are richer people. Wouldn't want to bump into them a yacht party after getting them to pay their fair share would you?

I didn't campaign for the LDs at the last election for this.

What happens to the people who have their benefits stopped?
They don't just disappear.

Many of them will turn to crime and that will cost the tax-payer even more money.

This is a classic example of one arm of government sabotaging another.

£5000 a year is saved in the DWP by stopping someones jobseekers allowance; they're then caught shoplifting in Tescos, they're processed through the criminal justice system, which costs the tax-payer £60,000.

If you'd just left them alone, you'd save £55,000.

And, a harsher regime at the job centre will inevitably force Graduates into unsuitable, low payed jobs, which won't enable them to re-pay their large student loans - thus more debt carried by the tax-payer.

The most perverse thing of all is the fact that the current economic collapse was caused by the richest people and institutions in our society. The government's 'final solution' is to hit the poorest and most vunerable of people with the proverbial sledge hammer.

Well at least the bankers and stock brokers will be able to buy new Ferrari's this year - that's the important thing. As long as we've got
our priorities right.

( Listen hard in Whitehall and you'll hear the sound of ministerial squealing as ministers have to turn their rhetoric about tackling the deficit into the painful reality of spending cuts.)

And the public sheep said, "What! We live in a DEMOCRACY! We shall hurl them out of office if they dare!"

So the politicans played dumb. There was no dumber than Gordon Brown, whose bowel movements were more obvious than his thoughts and policies.

Then one day, nobody knew how or why or where, the whole sham of stupid politicans fearful of their electorates dissolved and evaporated into history. They were no longer gutless, evasive, accommodating or hesitant. They ACTED! The public sheep were shocked, but it happened.

Ten years after that day, the BBC reported the history of the event, and it transpired that somebody, somewhere, had emboldened one certain politican to jump into the deep end. When the splash bothered nobody, (because everybody was sunbathing in an electric tanning parlour?), there was a stampede of politicians whom emerged bold, daring, and even brilliant.

But until those ten years later, the public sheep were left in their tanning parlours.

Go ahead and cut benefits I say. Why should my taxes be used to pay 400 pounds a week rent for someone that chooses not to work, when many people in work cannot afford to pay such a rent? A sensible housing benefit cap would be around 250 pounds a week.

Does that mean IDS gets to use that money for the reforms he wants?

Good, Osbourne showing some backbone, one major issue is that we have people who believe it is their right not to work, so you cut benefits to the point where people can't live on them for any length of time, you coerce people into some form of gainful activity that the government tops up to a living benefit level.

A New Deal for Britain, it helped the US in the 30s and it can help us at least start to polish up the great in Great Britain.

Well, my late father was English and my mother Scottish. She is still with us at the age of 94. So, George Osborne's idea of saving is to freeze her and take away her free TV licence. I bought the big LCD TV for her as her eyesight was deteriorating. George, of course, will suffer no deprivation.

I initially felt, along with my mother, that devolving power to Edinburgh was a bad idea. The devolved powers have now changed all that. We can at least protect our elderly and poor from some of this insanity. England voted an extreme right wing Etonesque party into power. Scotland didn't. Live with it.

Has anybody noticed that the LibDems are being given the job of announcing most of the bad news. Mind you, what ex Westminster School alumnus is doing in the LibDems is beyond my comprehension.

"One way of cutting the welfare budget is to work with buisness to stop the influx of migrant works like the 21,000 that pick 650,000 tonnes of strawberries every year and get the benefit claiments to do the work instead"

Well, that'll keep them busy for a couple of weeks. What about the rest of the year?

I tried that myself once. Found myself living in a barracks in the middle of rural Norfolk. When it rained solidly for a fortnight and the fruit couldn't be picked, I didn't get paid (we were paid by weight of fruit picked). I walked for two hours to the nearest public transport, caught a train to the nearest town and tried to sign on, on the grounds that I had no income. I was told I wasn't eligible for JSA as, being two hours from the nearest public transport, I wasn't available for work.

Fruit picking is a good way of getting a cheap holiday abroad (I've done it in Germany), but it's not a career - as for most of the year you don't have a job.

I agree that they need to get people back to work. But to do what? The growth area since the 80's (under both Tory and Labour governments) has been the public sector. Now that is being cut.
Perhaos that during this Parliament we will have the return of the Workhouse, to house those whose homes have been repossessed as a result of losing their job. Of course, they won't be called "Workhouses". Perhaps "Jobseekers Hostels" is a more appropriate term.
Now what sort of lifestyle choice would that be? We shall see.

Fantastic, brilliant, so we now can have full employment,eh where are all these jobs then? I knew it was to good to be true! remember that education is being cut as well. just to make sure many are unemployable.

Why is Mr. Osborne concerned that Mr. Camerons promise will be broken if they lower the winter fuel allowance or tv licences for the elderly, after all the lib dems have given up in everything they either promised or beleived in, why should the tories be any different? Oh sorry they just want to find the right words so they can try and con us as usual. Sorry elderly your about to lose out, don't worry though those milionaires that pay little or no tax are looked after which is most important.

I listened to your interview with George Osborne and I was dismayed, not just by you but by other journalists too, who allow ministers off the hook with kid-glove handling.The news item was about further cuts to certain benefits, those that will affect the people out of work.Isn't it strange that while Labour were in power unemployment levels fell? All those lazy, work-shy people chose to work rather than stay on benefits.
Then there's the issue of non-means-tested benefits.How much state funding is being paid to people on good incomes and people with considerable wealth? Such benefits such as child benefit, disability living allowance, winter fuel payments, for example, could be means- tested.I know of a number of comfortably-off people in receipt of some of these benefits.You asked George Osborne about a couple of these but you let him give an evasive answer.
And how much money is being lost to the public coffers as a result of tax avoidance/evasion and the existence of tax havens? What are you journalists saying about that?
I'm sickened by the ideological attack on the vulnerable people in our society while the rich and powerful do not suffer in any way.
Please do your job and raise some of these questions with ministers in the future.

I live in Bolsover, not far from Mansfield.

After hearing some of the comments about the North from various people from the South to the Jeremy Vine radio programme, I have decided that I shall boycott businesses south of Birmingham.
I've previously been a regular visitor to London on business and pleasure, flown from Heathhrow and Gatwick, holidayed in Kingsbridge in Devon every year and used a variety of business services and agents based in London.
I will take English holidays, board planes for foreign holidays, buy goods and services, only in the North.
I urge everyone, where possible, to do the same.
This isn't a United Kingdom.
I repeat, henceforth, again, where possible, I will not support any organisations and institutions located in the South.

The lib dems are showing us all how not to do it.
Sheffield Council has blown most of the £700,000 savings it made through cuts to youth services on paying off three senior council officials. 670,000k was paid out to the three assistant chief executives, while this month compulsory redundancy notices go out to around 50 staff members at Sheffield Futures, which provides the city’s Connexions service
(this is the big society in action)
whoever voted lib dem must be gullible!

"The money wont be there"

Unfortunately, neither will the jobs.

2.5 million chasing about 500,000 vacancies...I knew maths wasn't old Georgey Boy's speciality but even he must see a problem there.

Still no news on a crackdown on tax evasion and closing avoidance loopholes...still can't have everything can we...

Meanwhile, even those people Ozzy used to justify his economic madness are changing their tune...

Later, we can play the usual tory troll bingo. Points for the following:

ZanuLabour
Last 13 years
Any reference to Liam Byrne's note
Greece
Tribal
Any comparison to household debt
£1.4 trillion pounds
etc etc...ad nauseum.

Anyway, as Nick says "DON'T PANIC !!!!"

It would be helpful if besides the rhetoric the criteria for determining who was making "lifestyle choices" and who couldn't find work. With high unemployment one can suppose that the next "lifestyle choice" will be crime. Politicians like to say things that sound good but have no meaning and are unexplained. If cut, you are by definition, unworthy, as the bureaucracy is infallible, as we all know. Branding on the forehead may be in order as well. As usual the victim will be blamed and where the real money is will not be touched. Probably an equal or greater amount in military contractor costs adjustments and fraud. If the poor could just get organized and donate to campaigns things would go a different way.

I have recently taken early retirement at 60 having worked full time since the age of 16. I have been fortunate enough to have remained fully employed. Although I am receipt of an occupational pension I thought I would look for part time work. Since January 2010 I have scoured local and regional newspapers and have been to the local job centre on numerous occasions. I have written to prospective employers and on many occasions have not even received the courtesy of a response due to the large number of individuals applying for the same job.

I am not desperate to find employment but feel sympathy for those younger then me who are faced with a similar situation.

Faced with the possibility of substantial job losses in the public sector I forsee greater difficulties ahead for those being made redundant who will be looking for a limited number of jobs in the private sector. I always believed that the economy needed high employment to pay tax to fund the less fortunate. Given that there are likely to be less people in employment and less money being paid in taxes. I fail to understand how Mr Osborne can consider cutting benefit as an incentive to the unemployed to look for work when there are so few jobs available to apply for.

Many of the jobs advertised in my home area are poorly paid involving care work or menial jobs in the leisure industry. For unskilled workers with families who are on benefit I cannot see how they can take on those jobs and still support themselves given that the benefit they receive is more than they would earn.

Given that our political leaders are supposed to have some grasp of economics I really would like to know how they can consider cutting more jobs and at the same time cutting benefits. In my lifetime I have witnessed the near death of our manufacturing and skill base contributed to be Mrs Thatcher's government and the creation of public sector jobs to fill the unemployment gap by successive labour governments. Perhaps we need to accept that we will always need to support a large number of unemployed people and not pretend there are all those mythical jobs waiting for them.

pdavies 91 from previous blog

If you are going to answer, read what is written, fannel does not work with me. I explained why Swedens tax rate went as high as it did, because of Government spending. Much the same mistakes where made as in Britain. Now that sharp cuts have been made to Government spending, which you now agree was the case, taxation is being lowered and will continue to be lowered. This in turn has seen a large increase in growth in their economy. This is also true of Canada and other Countries who have adopted the same policies.

The same would be true in Britain as well.

As somebody who has studied European history, we seem to be moving towards a semi-totalitarian state, encased in a velvet glove and shark like smile.
In the past stigmatising those who are unemployed, have addictions, are sick or mental illness, those who society choose to use as an excuse for, things that are beyond its control or brought about by the Government itself, have resulted in far greater harm to those who are unable to argue for themselves, or to change their life direction.
Yes we need to address the massive debt caused by the last Government, but this Cameron/Clegg experiment is incredibly risky and could put this once great nation further into the doldrums.

#4 go see a farmer and ask if you can pick strawberries, apples
and all manner of other seasonal fruit and veg that should give you year round employement.

As a youngter I pick HOPS and what great fun it was in the open air sun and rain

The proportion of the working-age population living on out-of-work benefits is too high - for instance, does a country with a good health service REALLY have 2.5 million people unable to work on health grounds? - and the difference between working and not working is, at the margins, too small (the poverty trap). One reason for that is that taxes kick in at too low a level of income - once you take away benefits and also impose taxes, the incentive to work is too small.

So here's an idea - if we can't create a wider differential of quantity (i.e. increase the monetary incentive), create a differential of quality instead.

The way you do this is to pay benefits in kind, not in cash. This isn't difficult with modern smart card technology. That way, those on benefits would get their essential living requirements (a home, food, heating and so on) but would have little or no spending money. 'Food, a home, heating, we'll provide - but if you want alcohol, tobacco, a car and so on, get a job'.

Many taxpayers are happy to pay towards the living expenses of those without work, but feel it's a bit much to pay for discretionary luxury spending as well.

16 "£5000 a year is saved in the DWP by stopping someones jobseekers allowance; they're then caught shoplifting in Tescos, they're processed through the criminal justice system, which costs the tax-payer £60,000.

If you'd just left them alone, you'd save £55,000."

Oh, brilliant logic that.

A murder trial is far more expensive so why don't we put up benefits to £100k a year to any unemployed person who promises not to murder someone. Think of the millions we'll save in court costs and lawyer fees.

26. Boggy Marsh:

"I repeat, henceforth, again, where possible, I will not support any organisations and institutions located in the South."

This seems fair enough - but only if taxpayers in the south can likewise opt out of any of their tax money going to anyone living north of Birmingham....

Areas for the Chancellor to save millions:-
1. Save millions by ditching Degree level nursing. Go back to the old and proven system of training on the wards. I was nursed back to good health some years ago, the only degrees on the Ward were on my thermometer.
2. Confine child benefit to the first two children for new claimants. 3.Ensure that unemployment benefits to families do not exceed the national minimum wage rate. 4. (Most unpopular I know, but - bring in a national pay freeze-had one before for 18m months and it worked. 5. Special tax on banker's bonuses and shares in lieu of bonuss.
RHIWBINA68,, Cardiff.

You don't Make Work Pay by slashing benefits, you do it by making work pay ... e.g. raising the tax threshold, increasing the minimum wage, changing the restrictive rules on part time jobs ... like that, and having done so (made it pay), you'll reduce the total welfare bill. It's kind of similar to the notion that cutting tax rates can (via the incentive effect) lead to higher total tax revenue; with people working longer and harder and earning more. Not totally similar, though, since it will actually work.

Quick quiz.

Under Labour, what was the most you could earn and still get tax credits? £83,000 p.a. Yep, under their idiotic system you could earn more than an MP and get tax credits.

Under Labour, what was the maximum housing benefit? £104,000 a year. That's right, 4 times as much could be paid in housing benefit to the unemployed as the average working person earned in a year.

Under Labour, what was the maximum pay increase which would NOT affect your tax credits. £25,000 a year. Yes indeed, If in year 1 you earned £25k a year and got a certain level of tax credit, you could DOUBLE that in year 2 and still get the same tax credits.

Cue electric organ circus music and enter Gordon Brown dressed as a clown. "Roll up, roll up and help yourself to taxpayers' money, there's a never ending supply of it....."

No wonder the country's finances are so weak, no wonder welfare reforms are so needed.

What about having a look at the IMF paper for next next week’s Oslo meeting on the international economy. The IMF has always been seen as a respected body by economists/capitalists. This is what they said
“A recovery in aggregate demand is the single best cure for unemployment”. “Most advanced countries should not tighten their fiscal policies before 2011 because tightening sooner could undermine recovery” – and, one might add, not in 2011 either unless there is sustained evidence by then of a real recovery.
“An overly severe consolidation would stifle still-weak domestic demand. A fiscal target that demands too much too soon can damage the economy and thus the prospects for success of the fiscal target itself”.
Of course MR george osborne knows better.
Signs of another recession in america are increasingly ominous. Unemployment there is rising at an uncomfortable pace. Here the average uk house price has fallen for the second month running.
So is the way to go, unprecendented cuts in public spending on top of severe budget cuts. Kick the economy while its down and all those who are already strugling too?
The Coalitions days are numbered. The Lib-dems days as a significant independent political party already finished.
I think so.

Yay - I assume from this that wee Georgie has also told the City of London that they've got to stop forcing companies to offshore jobs to exotic climes and that they've got to invest in UK industry.

I agree with the idea that there are people who make it a lifestyle choice not to work. This is absolutely not acceptable.
It is also unrealistic for some people who say they are looking for a job which suits them but who refuse any work ... again that is not acceptable. In this economic climate people should take whatever job they can get and stop sponging on those of us who work long and hard and pay too much in tax to support others who loll about at home!!!
I accept there are genuine cases but they are in a SMALL minority.

On a related note .... could the government also properly reform the incapacity benefit to make people on long term sick who are capable of work get out and work ... this benefit pays out way larger sums of money to spongers than jobseekers allowance.
Britain is recognised far and wide as a welfare state ... it is not a compliment!

It's sad really. But there isn't enough money. And we can shout and stamp our feet and blame the nasty manipulative bankers or the dubious morals of our leaders but there is just not enough to go around. The ones who work pay for the ones who don't. I don't like the fact that some of my hard earn cash is being used to buy tobacco, and excesses in booze and food.
Of course there are people who are desperately trying to get back into work and I wish them every drop of luck. But when you've come off a 12 hour day, its difficult not to be a little miffed, when you pass the the obese, drunk guy, fag in hand outside the front of the pub loudly complaining because he can't get a job.
Life is tough. If you don't have a job your total benefits should not exceed 80% of someone on the minimum wage.

I am disabled and rely on a small amount of benefit to get by, and I am now starting to feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany, being demonized at every opportunity by politicians and the media for receiving welfare.

What is going on here is a smoke screen, to deflect attention from the true cause of the financial problems and that is the billions of pounds lent to the banks by the government. To pay for individual bankers greed, to make rich of the few to the detriment of the many.

So someone has to repay these massive loans. Now we don’t want to upset the rich and the powerful, so we pick on the guy who can’t defend himself. The poor lowly man who lives on £60 a week unemployment benefit.

Do you think that nice Mr Osborne heir to the ‘Osborne and Little’ empire with his trust fund of £4 million has ever had to survive on £60 unemployment benefit. These people have no understanding of how real people have live.

25 sandi.
great post.
welcome to the battle. morality verses ignorance, apathy and greed.

Still got your pink glazed glasses on eh! Nick.....lets get down to basics...if a family of 4 to 5 people in one house are all claiming benefits, which is around 500-600 pounds a week, and they are all capable of working but refuse because its easy not too work, please explain why I should pay anything to their welfar where I only earn £65.00 a week with no hope of getting any help.

Its all well saying get people back to work. Lets say the economy does grow and firms start hiring. What happens then? A huge of influx of EU citizens because unemployment is far higher in the paradise called EUSSR. There is no legal way to give Britons jobs ahead of Europeans. so unless the coalition does something about freedom of people movement in the EU this strategy will fail.

The biggest bill in the welfare state must be housing benefit yet which agency has the largest number of empty neglected housing? Yup the MoD which incidentally owns vast tracts of land used for training for D Day. As WWII ended a fair while ago perhaps the MoD could give this back to the rightful owners? It must be cheaper to provide social housing rather than pay housing benefit to rich landowners in the form of rent. Councils do have large amounts of capital that Whitehall (Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown) have stopped from using - thats why so many councils were caught out with Icelandic banks.

Sagamix asked in the previous blog if there was a way to get more income tax in. Easy. Abolish the intra company transfe schemes used predominantly by Indian companies. This wheeze allows Indian companies to transfer staff to work in the UK for say 3 months, but their salaries are paid as normal in India so tax is paid in India. The exchequer does not benefit in any way. Why Blair/Bfown set this up is beyond me, and why the Trade Unions are not screaming the roof down is a puzzle.

But seriously this is nothing, 6% barely scratches the surface of money that I am certain is wasted on frivalous expenses each year. The suggestion that it will target the Old, Weak and Poor is unfounded as long as things are done properly.

An important question... are we talking Billion in terms of 9 o's or 12?

That makes one hell of a difference and no-one is ever very clear on which it is.

With regards to "the rich and powerful not suffering", there are a small section at each end of society that I do believe owe their dues, I think both extremes should be affected as it is these extremes that cause the most notable impact. However at least it can be said for the rich and the powerful they are mostly there for a reason and they are mostly benefiting the whole of society in some way, whether it is creating jobs, bringing in business etc. It is the “Work-Shy" however who are simply too lazy and ignorant to stand up and achieve something for themselves, who are a pure drain on our resources as a nation.

I don't like the implication that this is a common occurence; but the report in The Sun about a 12/13 child family being given a £1.Something Million house is just SUCH a great example of the nature of things. This should not be possible. There is no way this should be encouraged. If a family is stupid enough to get themselves into this situation, then so be it but there is no reason why anyone else should have to help them out.

Evolution has taught us that Survival of the Fittest is essential for the continuous positive development of a culture. We are stripping away mature & well established evolutionary mechanisms by encouraging lazy and stupid people to increase their %age of the gene pool and thereby delaying the progression of the human race. It sounds extreme and the results will take a long time to be visible but still the end result seems clear to me.

Anyone not willing to look after themselves, and I know it sounds harsh, should be left to fend for themselves and in doing so we will create a nation of strong minded, individually reliable successful people. Once the cultural change is in place we can then we will reap the rewards as a nation. This is how development has occurred for hundreds of years and it was working well. Lets take one step back to take 2 steps forward and force people to take responsibility for their actions.
I am sure there will be those who suffer as a result of this kind of approach. I think “you cannot make an omlette without breaking some eggs” says it best. I am sorry for those people but if short term suffering brings about long term satisfaction I am all for it!

I do believe all this those who are truly unable to support themselves for whatever various reasons of age, misfortune etc should be given the full backing of State and Society but for every one valid recipient of the nations support there are, I believe, MANY who are creaming because they feel it is their right, largely because "everyone else is doing it". Sadly the only way to fix such a mindset is often to take the support away from everbody! And we can all thank the dodgers, creamers and work-shy scum for thi ssad state of affairs we are now in.

If we all pulled together for the greater benefit of our nation and society and all just put a bit of effort in, we could live in the greatest country on the planet but it needs EVERYONE to buy in to make this a possible reality.

andy c555.
forgot to say from prev blogg.
the salsa club found your james blunt cd.

28. craig
like it :-)

jason @ 14

"I think benefits shouldn't be paid in cash but in vouchers or prepaid cards only usable for groceries, fuel and housing."

Heart in the right place but this would be discriminatory. May be a way round that - implement such a system for all citizens - but then we run into Nanny State and personal liberty issues. So on balance, no.

I missed a bit... Stop blaming the government for the problems that each individual can take control of themselves.

Educate yourself! It has been done before, it can be done again.

Motivate yourself! If you really want to change your own situation, it is possible but it will take Time, Effort and Commitment. Too few people today have the ability to maintain faith and dedication to an idea. Culturally we have encouraged this but only individually can we break out.

Even if you fail to achieve what you set out, you will still be in a better position than when you started adn you will stand a better chance of making it next time. How many successful people have never suffered a near catastrophic failure? not many, if any! Deal with it, pick up and move on. (thats an order!)

Jobs. What jobs?

Why all the cuts in the first place?
A reported £850 billion to bail banks out using tax pays money. What are the benefits to the tax payer - Further public spending cuts.
Any company that goes into liquidation has its assets sold and the proceeds go towards paying the creditors.
The tax payers money has been used to protect the already "uber" rich members of society from getting short changed, where they may get 1p in every pound on there assets.
Vote Guy Fawkes

Nick I would have liked you to ask the Chancellor, how they are going to differentiate between benefit recipients. At the job centre they certainly dont we are all tarred with the same brush!! I was made redundant at the end of last year, and I am currently still unemployed and in receipt of benefits, which i think I am entitled to after working and putting into the system for over 25 years! Despite having both an undergraduate and an MA, I am still unemployed... I have applied for various jobs some of which I am over-qualified for.

I have also done a number of courses to keep mind, body and soul together. I have decided to re-train as a Counsellor. Despite being unemployed I have to pay for this particular course due to EDUCATION CUTS!!! (I guess that is another story) I am concerned about how am I going to live after these cuts, (as i live alone) my redundancy payment has finished and the little bit of savings I have will soon be going the same way!!! It seems like I will be made to suffer for the work-shy!!!

Well Mr Robinson, I too heard your 'interview' with G.Osborne, and I use the term 'interview' lightly. It was rather more of you being an official BBC mouthpiece of the Government's policy than what the more mature and educated public expect nowadays. It reminded me of the old newsreels i.e circa 1950- when it was considered an honour by BBC interviewers just to be in the same room as a goverment official- thank goodness we've moved on from such obsequiousness- or have we?
I'd like to have heard Mr Paxman have the same conversation with Mr Osborne. I'm sure HE wouldn't let him get away with the glib non-answers.

As to the policy of punishing the poor or jobless. Well the jobless figures are near to 3 million at the moment, roughly a tenth of the potential working population of the country. Thats enormous in 2010, when one considers that in the 1930s ( the Great depression) the figures of unemployed were similar. So the daily mail readers who have commented on this blog-- those who advocate sending out the unemployed to pick strawberries etc, ( and by the way- I suppose they should forcibly transport unwilling unemployed across the country to do this-Stalin if alive would applaud such actions)might remember that more often than not people are out of work because of the greed of Mr. Osborne s banker friends coupled with the incompetence of the previous government. Of course there are work shy people out there, but there many, many more people who have worked for many years who through no fault of there own are currently unemployed . They don't need any more punishment- the bankers though do. Perhaps , Nick you might have reminded G.Osborne of this.

At long last something is going to be done to stop the waste of taxpayers money on those who think welfare is a lifestyle choice. Before you lefties start whining, I am not talking about those who are desperateley looking for work but those who have no intention of working.

"if you look at MR osbornes face above" - lefty

Well done on the Mister - if we can do it for George we can do it for anyone - and yes, re the photo, I know what you mean. A picture tells a thousand words and never more true than here. That's a face clearly saying "We're going to squeeze the poor until the pips squeak and we're damn well going to enjoy it too."

According to Polly Toynbee in the programme on Radio 4 those who are the most famous or infamous -large, drug drink addicted make up about 2% - the vast majority who are poor are working on the minimum wage - it is low wages not high benefits that is the problem.

Tip for the coalition.
Save money and provide a better service by rolling back privatisation.
Example......
Connaught plc, the public sector outsourcing and social housing specialist. Going into administartion with thousands of jobs to go.

So why are they in trouble.
Pricing too keenly to get contracts. Contracts to repair/maintain peoples homes (often the most needy and vunerable council homes)
Cuts to contracts due to council refinancing and cost cutting.
WAIT FOR IT.....................directors bonuses...... aparently based on balance sheets that include contracts that hadnt even ben agreed yet.
And the administrator?
RBS. who were bailed out to the tune of £20bn just under 2 years ago, and 84% owned by the taxpayer.
ps.
recent phone in on radio 5 live had customers also compaining about the quality of some of the companies work.

I have read the comments with interest and can only conclude that the majority have no idea or conception of life on JSA. After 3 years of Further and Higher Education I have been unemployed since November 2009. I apply for (on average) 2-4 jobs per week. In all that time 3 prospective employers have had the decency to reply to my application and I have had 1 interview which was unsuccesful. It is not as if I am not seeking work. I am currently on a Skillbuild course which means I sign off JSA and therefore I am no longer classed as unemployed (it helps the statistics) but receive the equivalent of JSA plus a premium of £10 for attending at an approved training provider from 9-4 Mon-Fri.
However if I do manage to find casual work my benefits are affected. If I work an 8 hour shift the DWP disregards the first £5 and subtracts the rest from my 'benefit' payments. Given that it costs me £3 in return bus fares I am working an 8 hour shift for £2. If it was a 12 hour shift it is still £2. Where is the incentive to work? With regards to comment #18, I would love Housing Benefit of £250 a week. My Housing Benefit is set by the local council at £230 per month.

There is no mention of change to the following and without these changes you will not motivate people to work:
- staff cannot advise anybody above minimum wage qualification - there aren't links from job centres to common trades like new media, journalism etc.
- there is an instant cut off of benefits on job acceptance leaving those without savings without money for one more month and this is signficant to those people
- there is no quality of life benefit - I work a monotonous routine for low pay, hardly see anyone due to lack of cash due to debts from university and I often feel depressed - the assumption that work = quality of life is a lie and therefore cannot be a motivator.
-society is just as likely to faril when it is employed and unhappy as it is when it is unemployed and unhappy

If you don't know that you don't make the decisions.

These sorts of measures had some justification in a thriving economy with plenty of jobs where the only fit people who were unemployed were those between jobs and those who were unwilling to work. A shakeup of these attitudes to work made sense in the good times.

But we live in an era where there are few people who can guarantee that they will always have a job or that their skill set will always be in demand. Nurses, Teachers, Aerospace Engineers, Construction Workers etc are all vulnerable. Unemployment could now be inflicted on virtually anyone, through no fault of their own. In this context such policies are frankly obscene because they affect those who want a job and those who do not equally.

This kill or cure approach is what people who voted Tory actually voted for, even if some of them did not realise the consequences of such policies. Cuts in general are always welcome to hardworking employed people until the cuts affect them personally.

I can accept a Tory Government doing this and using unemployment as an economic weapon to control the masses. What I will never undrstand or forgive is the Lib Dems helping them to do it. Clegg's prevarication when interviewed on The Today Programme this morning was shameful. I am sure the electorate will reek its revenge on such behaviour.

So who are these people who refuse to work?
When YOU are made unemployed after years of paying your NI and tax it will be obvious that you are not one of them. You will be one of the 3 million looking for a job from the 300000 vacancies. But after a year you will be just as lazy and workshy as them and nobody will care.....

39.
quiz 2.

1.did the recent imf report suggest the recent budget was regressive or progressive
2. how can MR george osborne or MR david cameron relate in regard to financial difficulty.
A) been there and understand it.
B) had a bit of struggle in life
C) born with a siver spoon, got on through contacts and been rich since i can remember
3) WHAT WAS THE STATE OF PUBLIC SERVICES left by the conservadivs eg. hospitals, transport...when labour came into power
a) not bad
b) could do much better
C) rubbish. well below standard and starved of investment
4) does the recent IMF paper suggest the current coalitions severe austerity drive is
a) spot on
b) not good
c) disasterous.
5) what is your favourite musical artist.
a) james blunt
b) james blunt
c) james blunt

Poor get poorer and the priveliged stay just that. Are these people aware of the anguish and frustration of not being able to work or being unable to find work. The North/South devide will grow ever larger under the stewardship of Mssrs Cameron, Clegg,Osbourne and Cable (where has he gone by the way?)I notice George Osbourne has become much more prominent and outspoken since the election (didn't seem to do many interviews or much campaining before the election, was he hiding in someones closet?)As for Clegg,can we really trust a man branded a liar by Peter Mandelson over the Sheffied Forgemasters loan cancellation, when he tells us not to worry as the cuts /reforms will be phased in over this parliament.By the way has Mr Clegg made any response to Mr Mandelson, it was a pretty strong allegation and if not true, is a case of slander, surely. Oh can anyone tell me are there really 22 millionaires in the present cabinet? (surely an excellent cross section of the British public, i am sure they will have a firm grasp of the problems and hardship the cuts/reforms will have on the common people)

'Lifestyle choice' will come back to haunt Osborne in a few years time. You will be playing that phrase over and over again to films of cardboard cities, dole queues, and listless youth gangs watching uncleared rubbish blowing about the streets. Great lifestyle choice coming up.

"If you don't have a job your total benefits should not exceed 80% of someone on the minimum wage." - dougie @ 43

Yes, seems reasonable. Let's take the maximum possible a family of four can currently receive in weekly benefits (all in) and set the minimum wage at this amount plus 25%. Pitch the personal allowance at exactly that level too.

Boy George's comments today seemed to me to be a desperate appeal to the DailyMail/Express community. Welfare cheats exist but far more innocent or poorly educated people seem to fall foul of the quite complicated rules to claim welfare. I used to be a CAB adviser and can vouch for this. We need something bigger to have an effect (if that is necessary?)and freezing the State pension would be a starter. Nick allowed an old lady to get away with the comment "we've paid all our life for a pension" Not so if people relied on what they had paid in to the NI scheme for their pension it would be very much lower - its a popular or populist myth. I am a pensioner by the way.

How much are millions of immigrants costing us?

How much are EU policies (on fishing and immigration for example) costing us?

As someone who's just lost their job through the company going into receivership, I'm not impressed at all.
I live in Hull, we're apparently 320th out of 325 as the worst regions to cope with this economic downturn.
I apply for dozens of jobs, and get virtually no replies.. there's not much work for unemployed web-designers in Hull.
The North-South divide is astounding - it's worse than I ever remembered it. And of course the Tories don't care a rat's arse about it.
I only predict more and more pain for everyone in the north as long as this government is in power.
And to think I voted for the Lib Dems.. shame on me.. I don't think I'll be doing that again in a LONG time !! :(

Just what kind of ivory tower do these people live in? It just ISN'T POSSIBLE, as it is, to live on Jobseekers' Allowance AND look for work.

In the last 12 months to my 60th birthday I sent off 112 job applications and got 11 interviews:

1. Ageism is alive and kicking, since on more than one occasion I discovered that I was better qualified, and far more experienced, than any other applicant. A long way to go there, then, despite the legislation.

2. It wouldn't have been possible to search so thoroughly had I had to rely on two local newspapers for advertisements - which means an internet connection. Almost impossible to be serious about searching, without; our local library is open only 4 half-days a week (and is under threat of closure), so more costly travel to use the greater number of outlets at a bigger library; so you might as well have your own.

3. Without a car - even one paid for and taxed by my Mum - there are only two towns easily accessed from where I live. Everywhere else entails a journey of at least 1.5 hours (2 buses, waiting for connections)or is simply inaccessible altogether. And our village isn't even remote! We used to have rail links to all over, from our little station - until Dr Beeching.

If my ex-husband hadn't paid for my groceries each week, I simply couldn't have survived at all. So for that span of time, and the three times before that, that central or local government cuts threw me out of work, the government was sponging off my ex-husband. How anyone fares who is completely alone, I dread to think.

GROW UP, GEORGE OSBORNE! JOIN THE REAL WORLD, AND BRING YOUR CRONIES WITH YOU!!

As far as full employment is concerned, I wish someone could tell me (I wished it about the last government, too) how, particularly in these economic circumstances with more and more people being thrown out of work, it's going to be possible to employ every school/university leaver AND every older person on an ever-rising age-scale, AND every mother of small children, AND everyone else as well. Great heavens, back in 1972 people were leaving university with good degrees, finding themselves unable to find work, and realising they'd have to go back and get a Master's to stand any chance! Do these people ever listen to themselves? - because they all-too-clearly never think!

As for the rising pensionable age, I guess if either party can make it work (since it was a Labour aim too), it will have the double-whammy that NI contributions will continue for longer (for I'm quite sure they will!); and that more people won't even survive to pensionable age to collect. Nice one! - Lloyd George and Lord Beverage would both be proud of you . . .

- and for Dougie McC's information, you can barely live on the minimum wage unless you're living at home with your Mum and Dad and they're kind enough not to charge you rent.

Dougie, in your humbler way, you're right there in the next room to George Osborne. Knock on the wall, and he'll hear you!

So some old grandad works the whole of his life, fights for his country in the war, pays his taxes and NI for decades on a promise that he will be cared for in old age....then some public schoolboy who has never held down a proper job in his life comes along and stops the money that allows him to heat his house?

Is there no limit to the depths to which these psychopaths will plunge ?

Stirring up public feeling against 'benefit scroungers' is a tactic as old as the hills. Of course there are some but the great majority of people who will suffer in this climate of hatred are not 'benefit scroungers'. It's about creating the climate for taking more money from those who can least afford it, and making life as difficult as possible for them, by tarring all people who are unemployed as 'scroungers'. Some of the posters here should be saying 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

I'm concerned about my taxes paying for public services received by tax evaders. What action is to be taken about this 'lifestyle choice' when HMRC staffing is being cut? What sense does that make? Pre-election the Liberal Democrats argued against the need for a VAT increase by referring to the amount of tax which is lost as a result of people shirking their responsibility as citizens. There's much more to be gained by dealing robustly with tax evasion and loopholes identified by expensively employed tax accountants.

tenmaya @ heinz

"Before you lefties start whining, I am not talking about those who are desperately looking for work but those who have no intention of working."

Not to whine but this looks like a rather onerous new requirement - in order to receive benefits you need to be desperately looking for work? I see where you're coming from, I do, but I don't know how we're going to enforce; not short of the sort of surveillance techniques which very few of us are comfortable with.

Well, thanks George. We're all scroungers aren't we? Not you guys with all your millions. "We're all in this together"? Get real, loser.

So here I am. With my 42 wife with MS, unable to move, unable to talk, unable to do anything, but perfectly intellectually secure. This wonderful coalition is now going to test her TWICE for her access to Disability Living Allowance and Incapacity Benefit. Two things. What a waste of money and - can you imagine the stress and distress for both of us? Thanks Nick and the Lib Dems for joining in this witch hunt. I will never, ever, ever, consider voting Lib Dem again.

55 Pushkar, no-one is suggesting that everyone is playing the benefit system, particularly in these times and indeed I was in the same boat about 3 years ago and out of work for 7 months so i know what it's like. But equally it is clear that there are large number of people who do see benefits as a lifestyle choice. If you go in to the Jobcentre every two weeks if you are in a city i guess you will stick out like a sore thumb as a genuine workseeker. That's certainly how i felt signing on in Streatham every fortnight. In fact I recall a fight there on my first visit! And yes I agree the places aren't geared up for differentiating between the genuine and the workshy.

However that doesn't get away from the fact that when there are austerity measures and plenty of people who want to work who are losing their jobs that something should be done to change the system of the long-term underclass. Yes, it is as much about the future as it is now. There is no short term fix and it will hurt people. But no reasonable working person should stomach the bleating about the dreadful consequences of making the maximum housing benefit a paltry £400 a week. That equates to £1800+ a month and I guess a working person or family would have to earn £70-£80k a year at least to be able to afford that. That can't be right. And neither should anyone be condemned to a life on benefits. It was a safety net-for those in genuine need not for hue swarthes of society.

It's going to be painful, but even the Labour ostriches who think we can put off dealing with the debts forever will evetually have to face up to the reali of s or=term pain for lon term gai.

Just a short comment on number 48- drewtastic.
I'd like to compliment you Sir on your comments which appear to be a very similar and good translation from the original (German) book- Mein Kampf written of course by that model of moderation !!!! ahem!......Herr Hitler

There are so many pie-in-the-sky, airy-fairy notions on this site from people who've clearly never in their lives had to try to live, and look for work, on a scant £60, that I'm signing out and shall not return - otherwise I shall burst a blood vessel: and then I shall be costing them their hard-earned, hard-paid taxes in NHS care!

Scroungers I'm sure there are (though not nearly so many, nor costing the country so much, as the wealthy tax-dodgers); but don't judge any man (or woman) until you've walked two moons in their moccasins.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

July 2010 National Statistics office.
Total UK unemployed 2,460,000 (0f which 1,460,000 are eligible for Job Seekers Allowance); total vacancies 481,000 = 5.11 people for each job. So even if everyone is found as job, just under two million won't have one. Cutting benefits is an ideological response from a chancellor, a prime minister and a deputy prime minister (supported by a former prime minister turned author) who have never had to work for a living, who have never had to survive on a low income, who have never had to hunt for an income. We have truly entered a fuedal system, in which an elite are now free and able to give free rein to their frightening, divisive prejudices. A brief warning to those who support this kind of demonisation of those who, for the most part, are on welfare through no fault of their own. Remember the words of Pastor Niemoller. One day, you too might be unemployed...(I am after twenty one years of work being made redundant next month as a direct result of government actions).

Turning to the north-south debate. In response to the person, I think from the south, who asked if they could stop paying taxes to subsidise the north, that's fine by me if we can stop subsidising your total inability to pay your fair share of keeping the country solvent. Forget the artificial divide between public and private spending and government debt. The only deficit that matters is the balance of trade - last year this country got pooer by £82,365 billion. London, the south east, the south west and east of England imported £79,112bn more in goods and services than they exported. The rest of us together just about balanced the books. Now who is keeping the country afloat? And no prizes for guessing which regions are going to get hit most by a government dominaterd by public school eduacted bankers, aristocrats and general dilletantes who wouldn't know how to change a wheel much less design, make and then export a car!

We have a spiteful, nasty, unworldly and frankly damaging government, building upon the foundations so carefully laid by the last one.All that astounds me is that no-one seems to care enough to do anything.

And yes, Nick's interview was appalling in its lack of rigour and challenge. Clearly Cameron's little chat with Mark Thompson has done the trick!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OMG

First time I've looked at this blog in months and the same idiots are posting the same drivel!

GET A LIFE.

Another quiz

How many assessments do disabled people face to get access to support?

a) None
b) One
c) More than 5 in some cases

How much does each assessment cost?

a) Not much
b) £50
c) Probably about £300, but the Government won't tell us because its "commercially sensitive" - see questions in the House the day before yesterday.

How many disabled people are there in Great Britain?

a) Who cares (George, please tick here)
b) Not sure (Nick - that's for you)
c) 11 million

What is £300 x 5 x 11 million?

a) A waste of money
b) Distress and stress for disabled people
c) Both of the above

Would one assessment make sense

a) No - I don't understand the argument (George, please tick here)
b) Not sure (Nick - looks like you again)
c) Yes, I want to save the Government billions, make sure the right people get the right support and reduce the stress for genuinely disabled people (Dave - logical choice?)

"58. At 7:09pm on 09 Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:
"if you look at MR osbornes face above" - lefty

Well done on the Mister - if we can do it for George we can do it for anyone - and yes, re the photo, I know what you mean. A picture tells a thousand words and never more true than here. That's a face clearly saying "We're going to squeeze the poor until the pips squeak and we're damn well going to enjoy it too.""

Really? I thought it was a face that said "my favourite flavour of ice cream is chocolate chip".

But wow, Saga, taking a random un-posed picture of someone and extrapolating that into knowing what they're thinkng. That's really raised the level of debate. Perhaps you could serve on j a jury. I bet just by looking at someone, you ould tell if they were guilty or not.

I remember looking at a picture of Gordon Brown and his face was saying "why are half my supporters morons and the other half moronic bigots?"

Has anyone else got any facile, pointless, self-serving interpretations of what a 'look' means?

'68. At 7:38pm on 09 Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:
"If you don't have a job your total benefits should not exceed 80% of someone on the minimum wage." - dougie @ 43

Yes, seems reasonable. Let's take the maximum possible a family of four can currently receive in weekly benefits (all in) and set the minimum wage at this amount plus 25%. Pitch the personal allowance at exactly that level too.'

Very funny - if it wasn't so economically illiterate and/or deluded. But I would expect nothing less from someone who presumaly lives a good life with his credit cards maxed to the full but never expects to rein in his lifestyle or pay them off. Or at least has that economic philosophy.

65 - He's at it again. The James Blunt thing. How droll. I guess with all the pathological rage and hatred, there's little room for wit. So having found one thing he thinks is amusing, he'll use it over and over and over again.

You could start a band "James Blunt and the Evil Baby Eating Tory Toffs".

Sing rebellious songs. That ALWAYS brings Tory governments down.

Guys - this isn't for publication, but you take far too long to moderate

Anyone who has spent any time in our town centres during the day will realise there are too many able bodied people who are choosing not to work. In this environment no-one should claim benefits who is able to do any kind of work. I lost my job 14 months ago and wasn't prepared to take just any job, but felt it would be immoral to then take mony from the State, which is after all just other people. To do so would be reducing the funds available to people who genuinely were unable to work. I sold my car and lived off my savings instead until I found a half decent job. Whilst the trigger for the current crisis was imperial hubris and idiocy by bankers, the reason the UK is now in such a poor state is because during the "good" times the Brown/Blair government still borrowed and spent like a drunken sailor - just what Keynes insisted should not be done. Countries such as Canada are in a much better position precisely because for ten years or more before 2008 they lived within their means and posted consecutive budget surpluses. For the UK now the piper must be paid. Apparently many many billions, and we all must pay a share, even if we did nothing wrong.

The Tories' have openly had the agenda to cut the state, but had no mandate to do so. There are many thing Osborne could do to demonstrate the actions being taken are not ideologically motivated, yet he fails to do any. Therefore, every time the excuse of a "Labour led financial crisis" is used, and/or when blustering on about people claiming welfare when we basically fail completely to pay people a reasonable wage.... Well, frankly, right now I am ashamed to be British.

I scared to death of these cuts as i am 35 on DLA and Incapacity benefit due to having "Fibromyalgia" illness of the central nervous system - constant pain head to toe, cognitive dysfunction, loss of memory, chronic fatigue, disorientation, bladder and bowel problems, eye problems, unable to walk, the list of symptoms goes on and on - day in day out non stop.

i would not wish this illness on any one else, it is a living hell - but I am one of these so called called scroungers living in a life of luxury as so calle Mr. "Damien" Osbourne says.

My partner had decided to look after me as my carer because i nearly set fire the kitchen. But because of the news release today - he will be pushed into work and will not be able to look after me.

the government are brain washing this country say that people like me should work. Or people give sarky comments like "go out and work for your benfit".I would collapse on the ground. people like these get right up my nose and make me very angry. I just wish that one day they don't end like me. They would shut there mouths then. . People who speak like this about the genuine sick and disabled are idiots.

This government are evil and nasty. They will push me in to poverty. I hate them. I feel that I am a burden to the state and would be best to shrivel up - then they wont have to pay me a penny. Because of these cuts people who genuine sick and disabled will not be handle it - push them into poverty which will tip some people over the edge and probably do a bad thing to there selves.

Also what employer will take me on with physical and mental health problems.

@ComradeAndy - well said.

36. At 6:35pm on 09 Sep 2010, Friendlycard wrote:

26. Boggy Marsh:

"I repeat, henceforth, again, where possible, I will not support any organisations and institutions located in the South."

This seems fair enough - but only if taxpayers in the south can likewise opt out of any of their tax money going to anyone living north of Birmingham....
------------------------------------

Friendlycard, I'm not talking about taxes, my own or those people from the South that I am boycotting. I'm simply choosing, as is my right, where to spend my legitimate income which is properly taxed. I have simply decided to exercise my right to decide where to spend my money.

One caller from the South to Jeremey Vine said that "Northerners should get off their fat bottoms ..."

And that's just what I am doing.

@42 "It is also unrealistic for some people who say they are looking for a job which suits them but who refuse any work ... again that is not acceptable. In this economic climate people should take whatever job they can get and stop sponging on those of us who work long and hard and pay too much in tax to support others who loll about at home!!!"

As someone who is currently 'between opportunities' and who has paid in excess of £200k in direct tax and National Insurance over 25 years; I find it slightly offensive to be told that I should take any old job and stop sponging off of the said taxes that I have contributed. Contributed in the seemingly mistaken belief that I could fall back on them just in case I should ever find myself un-employed.

You will also find that those in the same position are not that small a minority either (60% of the well trained and technically qualified staff in the same area as I had their posts cut by our multi-national company).

Ask me, if the 'make-it-up-as-you-go-alition' continue on their current course, we will see a drain of talented professionals overseas. What jobs that will be left will be the 'jobs for the boys'; and everything else will leave Britain (to paraphrase Napoleon) a nation of shelf-stackers.

I was under the impression that my comment would be published, subject to moderation of course, over the pseudonym Rhiwbina. Can this be done please? If not, so be it....

Here we go again, cut, cut and oh - cut - & all because of the so called Labour legacy. This government need to remember that they were not voted in by popular vote, they got the job by default. Why? Because there are tens of thousands of people out there who are still suffering from the conservative legacy they left last time round eg. de-industrialising the UK. And I can take Mr. Osbourne right now, around hundreds of once thriving mining villages, steel and fishing towns which are now in so many cases, areas of crime, substance abuse and high unemployment. Does Mr. Osbourne want to be remembered as the Chancellor who helped put right that awful wrong, or does he want to be remembered as the Chancellor who helped drive the final nail in the conservatives coffin? Cuts are so not innovative, so tunnel visioned, so cheap pathetic. If only ministers put as much time in selling this innovative countries wares abroad as they do thinking ways of how to cut, we would lead the world.

What about the £13 BILLION in unclaimed benefits every year? thats the official figure of unclaimed benefits - the pensioner or disabled person who can't face a 40 page form to get £3.50/per week housaing benefit. You notice osborne makes no mention of them.
The people who want to cut benefits are The the same people who end up in my office when they have been made redundant and want to know what they are entitled to. I ask their circumstances Mum and Dad have both lost their jobs so are entitled to JSA contribution based of £65.45 each so thats £130.90 per week, as they have 2 children and their projected earnings have dropped substantially the may be due child tax credits of £98.85. Normally when I explain that the government has deceide that at £130.90 they have too much income to get income support they want to know how do they afford their mortgage, insurance, fuel bills. I have to explain that these are not included - you might get mortgage interest payments after 13 weeks but only when you have qualified for income support. insurance is not classed as essential and you won't get help for fuel bills. The government says 2 adults can live off £102.75 per week.
If your commentators think that is too high consider that of of that you have to pay Gas £15, Electricity £10, water bill £10, food £45, TV £6.50 license, phone £5, travel £8 - thats £99.50 so far and any bills you may have from the outstanding £3.25 you have left. I really hope that people who want beenfits cut never have to live on them because I get fed up with trying to explain that living a good life on benefits means living with debt, debt collectors, and if you have ill health constant fights from the DWP to get the health benefits. To drop from an annual salary of even £17K pa to £3403.40 pa is s avery large drop and I doubt any of us would adjust easily
The dorrstep credit sellers will be rubbing their hands in glee as there will be plenty of people needing a loan of £50 at 500% APR (Thats £250 to pay back in interest)
Yes there are people who live off benefits and most of the ones I meet are not healthy well off people. There are a minority who defraud the system - £1.5 billion was claimed fraudulently last year BUT £13 Billion was not claimed but should have been. As for the housing benefit most councils have agreed rates and if you accept a tenancy above the local housing allownce of £86 per week for a 1 bedroom flat then you have to pay the extra as you will not get benefit for it - Guess what happens - you get evicted for rent arrears.
As usual I have no respect for politicians - they pursue the lowest level of society and ignore the tax dodgers and millionaires with their fancy accountants. Close the tax loopholes rather than cut JSA.
For your information
JSA is £65.45 paid for 26 weeks and then its means tested income support of £65.45 so even if your a year on the dole your income is £3403.40, Housing benefit is £4472. Really big money isn't it.
Try sitting with a person who has applied for over 200 jobs, had 3 interviews and now thinks suicide is the only way out - in this climate how do I encourage them to keep living? I can't tell them they would be better off dead although it sometimes seems that this is the underlying tactic of the Con-Dem government.

I totally agree to the comments of number 44. This government is persecuting the sick, disabled and the unemployed just as the Nazi party did in the 1930's as my partner has said.

at the end of the second world war the "Tories" voted against the introduction of the welfare state. They have never liked it and they have never wanted it and that includes the NHS. Every time they have been in power they have tried to dismantle it. And if they are successful we will back to the level of poverty as in the 1930's - no help for no one.