General Chat

I quite like it:) But then so far, I am still very open minded about the new(ish) government:)

Used to be Uggers, now it's 4 children by 11 fathers ;-)

Uggers - in the world of classical music especially, Nigel Kennedy is on a par with David Beckham and football.
Young musicans will look up to him as a role model.

Loved Nigel Kennedys Vivaldi four seasons and that was the 80,s..
As for the Daily Mail?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Chris, I'm not sure I buy that - not that I think David Beckham is much of a role model - and personally I think you may be underestimating young musicians. However, supposing it's true and like some of the great Romantic poets he can't fully express his art without being stoned?

Absolutely unbelievable!!! I never thought I'd have a Victor Meldrew moment lol

Families work extremely hard to keep a roof over their heads and keep the wolf from the door and then you read about this selfish, self centred woman who thinks she deserves to be given the finer things in life on a plate just for existing and having children.

I hope this government gets tough on benefits and restrict the amount that is paid out to one family. The woman in the article gets more than some gets for working full time.

Uggers on reflection I should have said Michael Owen - he is a family man, no scandal and feet firmly on the ground.

I certainly could not say Rooney, Crouch, Terry and that is me out of footballers. Kenny Dalglish comes to mind but then that was long ago. Bought his biography last week as pressie for son.

I wouldn't personally believe all that I read.

The first sentence of this article reads " Most families who are due to lose their child benefit are worrying about how they'll make ends meet without it."

As I understand it, most families are NOT due to lose their child benefit. Families with a higher rate taxpayer are. But they are not "most families"

Which makes me,. for one, dubious about the whole article.

Sue x

And **most famiies **to lose CB are higher bracket earners and have till **2013** before it takes effect,,,,!!!!till then they will still claim their entitlements.

**most families** on benifits whos going to have changes in their benifits will take effect after the OCT budget** 2010.**

Think of it this way - can anyone really justify why a family with at least one member earning over 45k a year should receive anything in terms of welfare benefit?

On the other hand, IDS's proposal that all benefits should be capped at 25k (including housing benefit) doesn't make sense. Especially if you are living in London with a family, finding somewhere decent to rent will cost a significant portion of that. The sad result of this policy will be to do nothing more than to ghetto-ise those who haven't got work.

Don't misunderstand me - I for one would love to see measures to make sure that those who can work, do work. But I don't believe that you'll accomplish that by driving people out of their homes.

Sue x

Sue, the immediate changes to housing benefit worry me far more than the CB, there are people unemployed through no fault of their own who will not be able to meet their mortgage payments, the interest only benefit is being cut and I fear there will be many who lose their homes and where do they go? to the council for non-existent houses? The mortgage companies *might* delay taking action for a while, but if unemployment levels get worse rather than better those homes will be re-possesed and sold off for less than the amount owed on them.

Hi Rose

It's a sad indictment of this country that what has grabbed the news is the cuts in child benefit. I, for one, would like to see the wholesale removal of child benefit, winter heating allowances and free bus passes as a right and all of these means tested. I personally can't see any justification for continuing to give anything to people who have enough, anyway. Let's not forget, it's money taken from our salaries that pays for this.

On the other hand, I'm 100 per cent with you. Whether it's mortgage interest relief or rent rebate, if people aren't able to work, then it's up to any civilized society to help them - surely!

Sue x

...and unemployment is sure to rise as Local government departments and councils strive to make savings.
Oh - and you can be sure it won't be the overpaid managers overseeing the savings who lose their jobs!!

In the past 3 years I've had my job 'regraded' (down, of course) then had 2 years of no pay rise!
Meanwhile the Councillor 'leader' of Hampshre County Council (unpaid, but gleaning over £60k in 'allowances') has been giving top managers bonuses - including the top 'honcho' who is on over £100,000.

Me - cynical? What else can I be!!! LOL

Well the people wanted a new man at the helm so we got Cameron,,,,,and his sidekick,,,,,,,now these will be the ones shouting loudest that whats going to happen is nothing short or criminal...
I dont think people gave enough thought at the last GE just what would happen when Cons got in,,,,this is the price they are paying,so not good complaining when it gets tough and it will much tougher.

I'm not so sure, Maggie

Without breaking any confidences, there are managers (overpaid or otherwise) who are at risk here.

The sad thing is that unemployment will rise enormously with the cuts in the public sector - and I'm far from convinced that the private sector will be either ready or able to absorb these people.

Ironically, the person who's making the most noise about the "bloated" public sector is the seriously bloated Mr "at least I've sorted out street parties" Pickles.

Sue x

What can I say, Kay, except that you are so right. That'd be the same vote that women a few generations ago died to give us. Sad that so many people don't bother.

Sue x

True, Sue there are managers 'at risk', but not at as much risk as the lower paid within an organisation.
The lower paid don't have the opportunity to get bonuses, it's also very hard to complain that, with 2 colleagues gone (either through changing jobs, maternity leave or some other reason other than redundancy) your workload is too high - you're meant to be grateful that you still have a job!

I guess it's different in different places, and it depends on what you mean by "managers" Maggie. I can only speak for my part of the world, but first and second line supervisors aren't in the queue for bonuses. They're not exactly the ruling elite!

Whatever, this whole business is totally wrong.

Sue x

I worked three jobs rather than sign on the dole. 

It wasn't  my life long ambitions to do these particular jobs but they kept the wolf from the door.  There are jobs but people don't want to do these particular jobs maybe the money is not good enough or people do not wish to get their hands dirty but when needs must I am prepared to do anything legal to earn a crust.  Benefits are there as a safety net and not a career.  I would rather increase benefits for the pensioners and the chronic sick than pay for the likes of the lady in the article.  The benefits are robbing society of a persons self respect and an ability to take responsibility for oneself and ones family.

"Let's not forget, it's money taken from our salaries that pays for this."


Yes, it is but don't forget those who will lose CB are also having money taken from their salaries.

Tbh, I don't care much either way whether they stop CB for higher earners but I do think it is unfair that single income households earning £45,000+ get it taken away while double income households who earn up to £43,000? each still get to claim it. If they're going to take it away then it should be household income and not what each person earns individually.