www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

andrew wrote:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

not to mention grazing fees for the horse and hubby's flying lessons.

Perhaps that's what ITK has been doing in London.

advising this prat.

andrew wrote:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

Except that the mythical £53 quoted by the whining market trader was what he was left to live on AFTER rent and bills. Given that the supermarkets are so fond of telling us how you can feed a family of four for £50 a week, £53 per week for one person seems is perfectly manageable. I spent a tenner a week on food the last time I was unemployed.

Also if I am of limited means, I forego luxuries like internet, TV and mobile phone calls . These aren't essentials. Can't afford them? Wait until you have a job that pays you to have them...

Lefty bullshit can be quite hilarious at times.

InTheKnot wrote:
andrew wrote:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

Except that the mythical £53 quoted by the whining market trader was what he was left to live on AFTER rent and bills. Given that the supermarkets are so fond of telling us how you can feed a family of four for £50 a week, £53 per week for one person seems is perfectly manageable. I spent a tenner a week on food the last time I was unemployed.

Also if I am of limited means, I forego luxuries like internet, TV and mobile phone calls . These aren't essentials. Can't afford them? Wait until you have a job that pays you to have them...

Lefty bullshit can be quite hilarious at times.


Can we assume that internet is "essential" now that we can only claim benefits by using it,and it is needed for job-seeking?
I would rather like to see IDS manage on dole money, but i am sure it would be a lot less than fifty-three pounds after bills.
It is easy for anyone to manage on little money for a short time, but it becomes difficult as time goes on.

InTheKnot wrote:
andrew wrote:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

Except that the mythical £53 quoted by the whining market trader was what he was left to live on AFTER rent and bills. Given that the supermarkets are so fond of telling us how you can feed a family of four for £50 a week, £53 per week for one person seems is perfectly manageable. I spent a tenner a week on food the last time I was unemployed.

Also if I am of limited means, I forego luxuries like internet, TV and mobile phone calls . These aren't essentials. Can't afford them? Wait until you have a job that pays you to have them...

Lefty bullshit can be quite hilarious at times.

My dog is not a luxury it's a man's best friend and vets and pet insurance are essential along with my gas, water, electric, rent top up and phone credit.

Turn this round !

Why should somebody like IDS, making his way in the world, be forced or asked to live on less?

Shouldn't the message be, it can be done, be positive, get you face off the floor and try a little positive human outlook !

Not all working / affluent people are silver spoon public school people, so don't start using that old chesnut....if you are well off, and if you have worked to get that, IT SHOULDN'T BE LOOKED ON WITH AVARICE ! It should be welcomed as a good thing, and as the norm..........society wants equality, welfare can't provide equality, welfare can only provide a stop gap...........so don't complain that welfare isn't enough.....it isn't, agreed, but it isn't meant to be enough.

Since when has welfare been touted as enough to live on comfortably? It isn't comfortable, so it should act as support while trying to do better for youurselves !

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
InTheKnot wrote:
andrew wrote:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

Except that the mythical £53 quoted by the whining market trader was what he was left to live on AFTER rent and bills. Given that the supermarkets are so fond of telling us how you can feed a family of four for £50 a week, £53 per week for one person seems is perfectly manageable. I spent a tenner a week on food the last time I was unemployed.

Also if I am of limited means, I forego luxuries like internet, TV and mobile phone calls . These aren't essentials. Can't afford them? Wait until you have a job that pays you to have them...

Lefty bullshit can be quite hilarious at times.


Can we assume that internet is "essential" now that we can only claim benefits by using it,and it is needed for job-seeking?
I would rather like to see IDS manage on dole money, but i am sure it would be a lot less than fifty-three pounds after bills.
It is easy for anyone to manage on little money for a short time, but it becomes difficult as time goes on.

internet, telephone, transport and TV as well to keep up with the news : are all necessities of life, not luxuries.

it's why MPs have chauffeured cars etc.

I'll grant that while belts are being tightened that perhaps the horse could have a few less bakes hay but as Australia demonstrated...spend, spend, spend out of a recession is the way to go.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
[quote]InTheKnot wrote:
andrew wrote:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

Except that the mythical £53 quoted by the whining market trader was what he was left to live on AFTER rent and bills. Given that the supermarkets are so fond of telling us how you can feed a family of four for £50 a week, £53 per week for one person seems is perfectly manageable. I spent a tenner a week on food the last time I was unemployed.

Also if I am of limited means, I forego luxuries like internet, TV and mobile phone calls . These aren't essentials. Can't afford them? Wait until you have a job that pays you to have them...

Can we assume that internet is "essential" now that we can only claim benefits by using it,and it is needed for job-seeking?
I would rather like to see IDS manage on dole money, but i am sure it would be a lot less than fifty-three pounds after bills.
It is easy for anyone to manage on little money for a short time, but it becomes difficult as time goes on.

IDS is more than welcome come over to my flat for a month having my dole money and looking after my dog and paying all my rates whilst I have his place then maybe he understand not everyone has a life of Riley on benefits.

hedda wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
InTheKnot wrote:
andrew wrote:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

Except that the mythical £53 quoted by the whining market trader was what he was left to live on AFTER rent and bills. Given that the supermarkets are so fond of telling us how you can feed a family of four for £50 a week, £53 per week for one person seems is perfectly manageable. I spent a tenner a week on food the last time I was unemployed.

Also if I am of limited means, I forego luxuries like internet, TV and mobile phone calls . These aren't essentials. Can't afford them? Wait until you have a job that pays you to have them...

Lefty bullshit can be quite hilarious at times.


Can we assume that internet is "essential" now that we can only claim benefits by using it,and it is needed for job-seeking?
I would rather like to see IDS manage on dole money, but i am sure it would be a lot less than fifty-three pounds after bills.
It is easy for anyone to manage on little money for a short time, but it becomes difficult as time goes on.

internet, telephone, transport and TV as well to keep up with the news : are all necessities of life, not luxuries.

it's why MPs have chauffeured cars etc.

I'll grant that while belts are being tightened that perhaps the horse could have a few less bakes hay but as Australia demonstrated...spend, spend, spend out of a recession is the way to go.

It would be great to be in Australia's position, however the difference is they have China as a major trading partner who is buying everything the Australians can dig out of the ground. Our major trading partner (as with the US) is the ailing European union. This is the reason why the US is vainly scrabbling to get out of recession despite its policy of trying to spend its way out of it. It may have worked up to a very small point, but it can't get over the European hurdle and has merely added enormously to its considerable national debt.

I disagree Foz.

2 great economic miracles of the last century :

FDR dragged the USA out of the worst financial crash by massive infrastructure programs that gave working men and women wages which they in turn spend and spend.

Hitler did the same with Germany.

Neither relied on exports : essentially they funneled money to the lowest paid and the working class who in turn spent it (they can't save it) and both economies performed brilliantly.

Australia does have China but one of the myths perpetuated by the Gina Rineharts of the world is that she and her mines save Oz when in reality mining exports is only 8% of the economy.

When the 2007 crash decimated half the world PM Kevin Rudd adopted classic Keynesian economics (as had Hitler / FDR) and channeled money to the working classes via massive infrastructure programs and cash handouts to everyone on social security.....the result..now the best performing economy in the world.

IDS and hopeless Tories do the opposite...try to slash monies going to the poorest which frightens all working people and they stop spending.

In reality : billions could be saved via slashing corporate welfare, collecting corporate tax avoided etc.

John Maynard Keynes : never been proved wrong yet.

The welfare state is a good idea badly abused!

I'm really interested by your comments on the Australian economy Hedda - I think the rest of the world could learn a lot from it.

InTheKnot wrote:
andrew wrote:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/...-smith-live-benefits

Try adding broadband, TV license, pet food, 2 sets of water rates, food, gas and electric, contents insurance and pet insurance and phone credit.

It's more than £53 Iain.

Except that the mythical £53 quoted by the whining market trader was what he was left to live on AFTER rent and bills. Given that the supermarkets are so fond of telling us how you can feed a family of four for £50 a week, £53 per week for one person seems is perfectly manageable. I spent a tenner a week on food the last time I was unemployed.

Also if I am of limited means, I forego luxuries like internet, TV and mobile phone calls . These aren't essentials. Can't afford them? Wait until you have a job that pays you to have them...

Lefty bullshit can be quite hilarious at times.

After my bills, £53 is fine for me. I get my food etc out of it easily.

Bread? If I don't buy fresh rolls I stick a loaf in the freezer and use it for toast and it lasts me a week that way.

Milk? 2 litre Tescos Pure Skimmed for £1 again lasts me a week.

Pattaya wrote:
The welfare state is a good idea badly abused!

Same the other side. The whole business of tax allowances for self employed gets me. The amount I can claim back means I generally get my wages back (and more) each week! That's money that the government doesn't get because HMRC say it's tax deductible.

It's why I don't do any self employed jobs anymore found it too confusing.

Mr Reason wrote:
Turn this round !

Why should somebody like IDS, making his way in the world, be forced or asked to live on less?

Shouldn't the message be, it can be done, be positive, get you face off the floor and try a little positive human outlook !

Not all working / affluent people are silver spoon public school people, so don't start using that old chesnut....if you are well off, and if you have worked to get that, IT SHOULDN'T BE LOOKED ON WITH AVARICE ! It should be welcomed as a good thing, and as the norm..........society wants equality, welfare can't provide equality, welfare can only provide a stop gap...........so don't complain that welfare isn't enough.....it isn't, agreed, but it isn't meant to be enough.

Since when has welfare been touted as enough to live on comfortably? It isn't comfortable, so it should act as support while trying to do better for youurselves !

I agree that much of the comments about IDS focus on his salary and seem motivated by jealousy,and it is not nice.
Being rich doesn't necessarily mean that you cant understand the difficulties of the poor,but he came across as a bit callous.
There is a fine line between keeping benefits low enough to encourage claimants to find work and de-humanising and depressing them to the extent that they are not fit to work or be useful in society.

hedda wrote:
I disagree Foz.

2 great economic miracles of the last century :

FDR dragged the USA out of the worst financial crash by massive infrastructure programs that gave working men and women wages which they in turn spend and spend.

Hitler did the same with Germany.

Neither relied on exports : essentially they funneled money to the lowest paid and the working class who in turn spent it (they can't save it) and both economies performed brilliantly.

Australia does have China but one of the myths perpetuated by the Gina Rineharts of the world is that she and her mines save Oz when in reality mining exports is only 8% of the economy.

When the 2007 crash decimated half the world PM Kevin Rudd adopted classic Keynesian economics (as had Hitler / FDR) and channeled money to the working classes via massive infrastructure programs and cash handouts to everyone on social security.....the result..now the best performing economy in the world.

IDS and hopeless Tories do the opposite...try to slash monies going to the poorest which frightens all working people and they stop spending.

In reality : billions could be saved via slashing corporate welfare, collecting corporate tax avoided etc.

John Maynard Keynes : never been proved wrong yet.


It's very debatable. It only works if the economy can sustain it. We cannot afford to throw money indefinitely at the problem as we cannot afford to borrow any more money to throw at it.
With Hitler it looked good on the surface, but Germany ended up with unsustainable debts because of its spending and wages were cut massively in order to try and maintain full employment. This may have been an influence on Germany's questionable foreign and home policy strategies. The rest is history.
As many people argue that FDR's policies lengthened the recession. Don't forget the UK was out of recession by the early 30's without using Keynesian policies, the US didn't really recover fully until a few years later (when 20% of people were still unemployed). Of course WW2 helped them as they produced everything for their allies and then tax cuts afterwards propelled them further.
With Australia, they can well afford to do it as their population is four times smaller than the UK and they have not spent so much bolstering up their banks because the recession did not affect them as much. Rudd ploughed less than $11bn into the economy. That wouldn't even scratch the surface in the UK.

Ah but why didn't the recession hit Australia?

Mainly because they had the right trading partner (China) which kept the money coming in. The stimulous package on its own itself would not have worked long term unless they had a successful trading partner.

no the main reason is that both left and right political parties in Australia maintained Keynsian style strict controls over the financial sector, banks and so on.

unlike the UK which under Nu Labour adopted the 'free market' fantasies of Regan / Thatcher/ Bush.