'I want to make sure that my government always looks after the elderly, the frail the poorest in our country.'

Hi Isaac,

Interesting post.

My take on things is slightly different :

(1) The measure of a society is how it treats its defenceless : the young, the poor, the old, its prisoners.

(2) These things all require an agreed allocation/reallocation of the national 'cake';

(3) Under the last several governments, but particularly Labour, a lot of the ingredients for making the 'cake' larger were 'wasted' on unproductive ingredients, so there was less 'cake' available for (re)distribution.

We can - and as a society DO - argue about how to get back to a 'sound', expanding 'cake'. A good start, IMHO, would be to stop talking about 'austerity measures' and instead talk about 'common sense' ie living within one's means, something we (generally) in the West haven't done for a generation.......to see real 'austerity' in action, look at Latvia, which cut everybody's budgets by something like 20% back in 2007-8.

I agree with this quote from a recent Economist article on 'crowd-sourcing' (May 26th edn.) :

"........In places where rules and institutions do not protect co-operators, freeloaders consistently dominate....."

The difficulty lies in sorting the wheat from the chaff : we have a lot of decent people who are - on the face of it being penalised (as per your press extracts); unfortunately, they are the stalking horses/victims of a system that has evolved over the last couple of decades increasingly to favour a 'freeloader' mindset.

We see evidence of this mindset across the political/wealth spectrum, from the many (now, IMHO) ridiculously overpaid bankers and company bosses to the welfare scroungers and benefit cheats (domestic and imported) so popular wit the red-tops......

The sad reality (IMHO) is that the Tories have a somewhat better grasp of the economic facts of life than does Labour - so they get my (unenthusiastic) vote as 'the lesser of two weevils'........

I think your 'solution' to a complex issue is somewhat simplistic and also ("kick the Tories out") a bit misdirected.. if anything, they're part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Err, hang on a sec......this all sounds a bit familiar.....

See you next Weds at the Soco AGM ?? ;- )

Enjoy your weekend !

Hi ISaac

But I am certainly not in favor of cutting the benefits from old aged pensioners who have to make a decision as to whether they can eat or put the heating on!

My tendency is to agree with you overall in terms of views of the party. However, I don't really agree on this issue. As far as I am aware no one (who is likely to control outcomes anyway) is proposing cutting fuel allowances for those who are having to make the sort of decisions you mention. What is clear though is that there are many who receive (or in my case are about to receive) the fuel allowance who have absolutely no need for it. Why should I be getting it when there are, as you say, many pensioners who have real issues about income? Whoever is in power times are hard and expenditure is going to be tight, that means looking closely at directing help where it is needed most - and by no stretch of the imagination are I, or many other pensioners in that position.

What is clear though is that there are many who receive (or in my case are about to receive) the fuel allowance who have absolutely no need for it. Why should I be getting it when there are, as you say, many pensioners who have real issues about income?

Because you saved, made sacrificies and worked hard for your money? Whereas Joe Bloggs has pissed away his money every week on beer and has nothing left when times are tough? So the tax payer should bail out Joe Bloggs as he was'nt prepared to save for a rainy day?

My view is if your going to give the benefit to one person then give it to everyone, maybe Fiona Bruce and Hugh Edwards don't need it, but £132.60 a week is pocket change that won't take you very far!

I spoke to a friend a few days ago who has come from Singapore to work in the UK, we briefly discussed the work ethic and how in the UK you have a choice - you can either work or live on benefits. Whilst in Singapore you have no choice but to work and as such EVERYONE just GOES FOR IT.

They all work hard in their education and careers & finding decent jobs etc etc It is very competitive.

And the tax rates are signficantly lower then the UK, people on average salaries back there pay 14% tax with no NI.

Because you saved, made sacrificies and worked hard for your money? Whereas Joe Bloggs has pissed away his money every week on beer and has nothing left when times are tough? So the tax payer should bail out Joe Bloggs as he was'nt prepared to save for a rainy day?

>> on the other hand, there are cases of people like fred goodwin, on a pension of a million a year, who clearly don't need a couple of hundred quid winter heating allowance. The question is where do you draw the line ? I agree it's not fair to punish those who have saved and generally I am in favour of universal benefits as otherwise, it costs more to ration than it saves, or some needy don't get it as they don't know to apply.

Tricky balance in these difficult times. I'm sure we all know of wealthy pensioners retired abroad for example who (unless it's been changed), still get winter fuel allowance as they work on their tans,

K

The old have had it all, infact those who have retired in the last 25 years have had a party.!
The state should only help those who have no money, house , phone, car, dog, TV, and so on.
Those over 65 should have to work looking after other old folk till they die in return for a roof over their head 10 to a room, but with heat and meals valued at £2.00 a day.
No right at all to not work till you die if you do not have the money to keep yourself.

It is the young where the state should be spending, we all have a lifetime to save,[forced if required].

To me this is just what will happen over the next 50 years all around the world.