Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
13 Dec 12
11:42
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
as Government aims to end 'welfare for life'
New figures show 71 per cent of claimants do not go through proper checks.
Without reform, one in every 17 adults would be claiming DLA by 2018 says Disability minister .
By James Chapman
13 December 2012
The Government is to reduce or stop disability allowance for hundreds of thousands of claimants in a bid to end unchecked ‘welfare for life’.
The clampdown comes as new figures suggest that seven in ten of those claiming the benefit go through the system without proper checks.
Ministers intend to reassess an initial 560,000 claimants, and expect that 330,000 – nearly 60 per cent – will get no award or a reduced sum after the checks.
There are currently 3.2million adults claiming disability living allowance (DLA), costing Britain £13.2billion a year – equivalent to the entire budget for the Department for Transport.
The number of claimants has more than trebled since the benefit was created in 1992.
Disability minister Esther McVey said without reform, one in every 17 adults would be claiming DLA by 2018.
The Tory minister said the vast majority of claimants – 71 per cent – get the benefit ‘for life’, often having filled in an initial claim form about their capability themselves.
She added that about a third of people with a disability had a change in a condition in a year – some for the worse, but many for the better.
This suggests that in many cases claimants may no longer need the full benefit or any allowance at all.
The first 560,000 claimants will be reassessed by October 2015.
The group consists of those who report a change in circumstance or who have been given a time-limited award that comes to an end.
In a concession to critics, the Government will slow down the timetable for checks on the remaining claimants, which will begin in 2015. It is not clear that the same proportion will see benefits reduced in the second stage as in the first.
An independent review of the first stage of reform will be conducted in 2014.
The Government has already identified £630million in overpayments and £190million in underpayments, highlighting the turmoil in the welfare system.
Miss McVey said: ‘It has been considered a static benefit, not a dynamic one. But there will be people getting better thanks to medical advances or who overcome an impairment. So we need new and more regular assessments.
DLA is an outdated benefit introduced over 20 years ago.
‘At the moment the vast majority of people get the benefit for life without systematic checks to see if their condition has changed.’ The Coalition is replacing DLA with a new benefit, called the personal independence payment.
It will be designed to target more generous support towards ‘those who need it most’.
The new system will involve a medical expert assessing a claim in a face-to-face appointment, and regular later checks.
Last night, charities voiced a chorus of protest at plans to slash the disability benefit bill.
A poll by campaign group Disability Alliance found that 9 per cent of survey respondents said losing the disability living allowance ‘may make life not worth living’.
The group has also protested that the Government had identified cuts in spending before consulting on which elements of benefits needed to be reformed.
The clampdown on disability benefit emerged as the Conservatives and Labour traded increasingly bitter blows over efforts to cut the vast welfare budget
At Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, David Cameron condemned Labour as the party of ‘unlimited welfare’.
Ed Miliband made clear Labour will oppose Government plans to cap most out-of-work benefits and tax credits to a below-inflation 1 per cent increase for the next three years.
Labour claims that the squeeze will hit lower income families who are in work but in receipt of tax credits as well as the unemployed, but the Prime Minister insisted that such concern is misplaced.
Working families would be more than compensated by other measures, most notably, a record increase in the basic rate income tax threshold to £9,440, Mr Cameron said.
Officials say the average working family would be £125 a year better off next year once the income tax break, the tax credit squeeze and the cancellation of a 3p rise in fuel duty are taken into account.
Savings from the welfare cap are so significant that it would take a 1p rise income tax to plug the gap.
Mr Miliband accused the Government of seeking to ‘divide and rule’, by portraying benefit claimants as ‘scroungers’
New figures show 71 per cent of claimants do not go through proper checks.
Without reform, one in every 17 adults would be claiming DLA by 2018 says Disability minister .
By James Chapman
13 December 2012
The Government is to reduce or stop disability allowance for hundreds of thousands of claimants in a bid to end unchecked ‘welfare for life’.
The clampdown comes as new figures suggest that seven in ten of those claiming the benefit go through the system without proper checks.
Ministers intend to reassess an initial 560,000 claimants, and expect that 330,000 – nearly 60 per cent – will get no award or a reduced sum after the checks.
There are currently 3.2million adults claiming disability living allowance (DLA), costing Britain £13.2billion a year – equivalent to the entire budget for the Department for Transport.
The number of claimants has more than trebled since the benefit was created in 1992.
Disability minister Esther McVey said without reform, one in every 17 adults would be claiming DLA by 2018.
The Tory minister said the vast majority of claimants – 71 per cent – get the benefit ‘for life’, often having filled in an initial claim form about their capability themselves.
She added that about a third of people with a disability had a change in a condition in a year – some for the worse, but many for the better.
This suggests that in many cases claimants may no longer need the full benefit or any allowance at all.
The first 560,000 claimants will be reassessed by October 2015.
The group consists of those who report a change in circumstance or who have been given a time-limited award that comes to an end.
In a concession to critics, the Government will slow down the timetable for checks on the remaining claimants, which will begin in 2015. It is not clear that the same proportion will see benefits reduced in the second stage as in the first.
An independent review of the first stage of reform will be conducted in 2014.
The Government has already identified £630million in overpayments and £190million in underpayments, highlighting the turmoil in the welfare system.
Miss McVey said: ‘It has been considered a static benefit, not a dynamic one. But there will be people getting better thanks to medical advances or who overcome an impairment. So we need new and more regular assessments.
DLA is an outdated benefit introduced over 20 years ago.
‘At the moment the vast majority of people get the benefit for life without systematic checks to see if their condition has changed.’ The Coalition is replacing DLA with a new benefit, called the personal independence payment.
It will be designed to target more generous support towards ‘those who need it most’.
The new system will involve a medical expert assessing a claim in a face-to-face appointment, and regular later checks.
Last night, charities voiced a chorus of protest at plans to slash the disability benefit bill.
A poll by campaign group Disability Alliance found that 9 per cent of survey respondents said losing the disability living allowance ‘may make life not worth living’.
The group has also protested that the Government had identified cuts in spending before consulting on which elements of benefits needed to be reformed.
The clampdown on disability benefit emerged as the Conservatives and Labour traded increasingly bitter blows over efforts to cut the vast welfare budget
At Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, David Cameron condemned Labour as the party of ‘unlimited welfare’.
Ed Miliband made clear Labour will oppose Government plans to cap most out-of-work benefits and tax credits to a below-inflation 1 per cent increase for the next three years.
Labour claims that the squeeze will hit lower income families who are in work but in receipt of tax credits as well as the unemployed, but the Prime Minister insisted that such concern is misplaced.
Working families would be more than compensated by other measures, most notably, a record increase in the basic rate income tax threshold to £9,440, Mr Cameron said.
Officials say the average working family would be £125 a year better off next year once the income tax break, the tax credit squeeze and the cancellation of a 3p rise in fuel duty are taken into account.
Savings from the welfare cap are so significant that it would take a 1p rise income tax to plug the gap.
Mr Miliband accused the Government of seeking to ‘divide and rule’, by portraying benefit claimants as ‘scroungers’
Show More
Most of them not British either SS.........hard to avoid/ignore the immigrant effect?
BARNEY21. 16 Dec 12 18:53 Joined: 14 Oct 01 | Topic/replies: 1,780 | Blogger: BARNEY21.'s blog
Imfao you seem to be very well versed as far as how the finances of this works,I am certainly not ignorant and what I put up was a very simplistic take on things,if yourself and those who understand and are in charge of such the financial machinations why the fcuk are we in the mess we are in,it would appear to me that there is NO one with a clue as to how to sort it out,City of Longone/BOE/or the financial securities charged with overseeing our economy and you tell me that I,m ignorant ffs.
Ok Barney- now that you say you understand this- i take it back
You are obviously not ignorant
so i was right with my initial assertion: you made idiotic postings.
How did it happen?
those wretched banks lent money on poor asset basis
just like giving everyone more dosh to spent- which is your proposal
idiot!
Imfao you seem to be very well versed as far as how the finances of this works,I am certainly not ignorant and what I put up was a very simplistic take on things,if yourself and those who understand and are in charge of such the financial machinations why the fcuk are we in the mess we are in,it would appear to me that there is NO one with a clue as to how to sort it out,City of Longone/BOE/or the financial securities charged with overseeing our economy and you tell me that I,m ignorant ffs.
Ok Barney- now that you say you understand this- i take it back
You are obviously not ignorant
so i was right with my initial assertion: you made idiotic postings.
How did it happen?
those wretched banks lent money on poor asset basis
just like giving everyone more dosh to spent- which is your proposal
idiot!
how do we sort it out?
through many years - perhaps a decade- of tight money- reduction of debt- tightening the uk purse- saving expenditure wherever possible- oh- and by reducing social state charity to a limit which can be afforded in these unpleasant times- inter alia- by cutting welfare to the bone
its not difficult to grasp
if a family lives for too long above its income- eventually they face hard times and bankruptcy- e.g.you cant keep borrowing by remortgaging the house ad infinitum - particularly so when the asset value is not steadily increasing year on year
much of the problem here is that many in middle income uk felt no pain whatsoever during the first 2 years of the recession- if they kept their jobs that is: mortgage rates fell and disposable income actually rose - during this 'rosy' period i urged all my friends to be careful and to reduce debt - because we were inevitably going to go into our current phase- of undisguised austerity.
welfare benefits have to be paid for - we cannot currently afford to carry on recklessly with the current level of payments or debt
this is the beginning
there is worse to come
through many years - perhaps a decade- of tight money- reduction of debt- tightening the uk purse- saving expenditure wherever possible- oh- and by reducing social state charity to a limit which can be afforded in these unpleasant times- inter alia- by cutting welfare to the bone
its not difficult to grasp
if a family lives for too long above its income- eventually they face hard times and bankruptcy- e.g.you cant keep borrowing by remortgaging the house ad infinitum - particularly so when the asset value is not steadily increasing year on year
much of the problem here is that many in middle income uk felt no pain whatsoever during the first 2 years of the recession- if they kept their jobs that is: mortgage rates fell and disposable income actually rose - during this 'rosy' period i urged all my friends to be careful and to reduce debt - because we were inevitably going to go into our current phase- of undisguised austerity.
welfare benefits have to be paid for - we cannot currently afford to carry on recklessly with the current level of payments or debt
this is the beginning
there is worse to come
We happen to live in a democracy.
Whether you're right or not you would get about 1% of the vote with that message.
Everybody poorer means negative growth btw. That strikes me as a problem.
Whether you're right or not you would get about 1% of the vote with that message.
Everybody poorer means negative growth btw. That strikes me as a problem.
Imfao I hink you are a wee bit up your own a---hole,if there are less people with less spending power there will be less "growth" explain to me who is a simpleton how we are going to get out of this mess created by the forward thinking banks/financiers and yourself who seems to have the answers to our ills but in all your cleverness didn,t see this crash coming or the last one or the one before that e.t.c./e.t.c.Until the people take control of the flow of cash this will go on and on.
It seems to me that the real problem is that too many of the rich people and corporations are not paying any tax.
They can employ clever accountants to find loopholes to avoid it.
There is a statistic that is well known among people who work in the benefits agencies that is rarely mentioned in the media. That is, that the amount of money lost by fraudulent claims, is only equal to a third of the amount of money that isnt paid to people that could claim and dont because they are not made aware their ability to claim.
On this basis the real fraudsters are the benefit agencies themselves who do their best not to give to those that are genuinely entitled.
wonder what happens to all the money they save then? Nukes? Royal Family?
Dont blame societies ills on the people at the bottom. Blame it on the rich cu**s who are taking all the cash and never letting it trickle down.
They can employ clever accountants to find loopholes to avoid it.
There is a statistic that is well known among people who work in the benefits agencies that is rarely mentioned in the media. That is, that the amount of money lost by fraudulent claims, is only equal to a third of the amount of money that isnt paid to people that could claim and dont because they are not made aware their ability to claim.
On this basis the real fraudsters are the benefit agencies themselves who do their best not to give to those that are genuinely entitled.
wonder what happens to all the money they save then? Nukes? Royal Family?
Dont blame societies ills on the people at the bottom. Blame it on the rich cu**s who are taking all the cash and never letting it trickle down.
true as long as they all are dining at the ritz,buying their clothes from some of philip greens establishments getting coffee from starbucks and buying their crapola from amazon everythings fine.
Hounding the productive for money to pay the unproductive isn't the way to grow the economy.
Besides the the extra tax collected would be nowhere near enough to put things right.
It wasn't the money they didn't collect that got us into this mess.
It was the money they spent that we hadn't got that did that.
The more they collect the more they spend, and when we have downturn we're in the sh!te.
Besides the the extra tax collected would be nowhere near enough to put things right.
It wasn't the money they didn't collect that got us into this mess.
It was the money they spent that we hadn't got that did that.
The more they collect the more they spend, and when we have downturn we're in the sh!te.
But you are talking as though all the money the govt spent went on "handouts" to scoungers ( like me as you would see it ). Two things. Firstly in about 28 months I will get the OAP,which I already would be if I was a woman. Are you still going to attack me then. Secondly what about military spending and the huge amounts we spend on our supposedly independent nuclear detterent .
That @ Crippen btw.
That @ Crippen btw.
It always amazes me when when things go wrong with the economy that the people at the bottom are the ones who are blamed.
They have no power or influence and do not make any of the decisions and yet somehow its their fault we are in this mess.
They have no power or influence and do not make any of the decisions and yet somehow its their fault we are in this mess.
Nobody is attempting to blame those on benefits. Who wouldn't take advantage of a system that encourages idolness.
The problem is Welfare was never intended as a life choice. Consecutive governemnts have sought to buy votes for the past 60 years and now any sensible suggestion to slightly reverse that is met with media induced outrage.
Hence why no politician has the conviction to do what is needed.
The problem is Welfare was never intended as a life choice. Consecutive governemnts have sought to buy votes for the past 60 years and now any sensible suggestion to slightly reverse that is met with media induced outrage.
Hence why no politician has the conviction to do what is needed.
The Establishment create a two tier educational system. Some people are educated to govern and the majority of others educated to be governed.
Most people are given enough skils to do a job rather than have a career.
Then when those jobs are systematically taken away (eg coalmining, shipbuilding, steel)these people do not have the skills to do whatever is left in the workplace. They have become institutionalised (through no fault of their own) to the industry they were in and are literally left to their own devices on benefits after the closures.
After a while when everyone has forgotten who made these closures (the decision makers) the people on the dole, who are now just statistics are branded idol to divert the publics attention from the real perpetrators of the economies downfall.
Most people are given enough skils to do a job rather than have a career.
Then when those jobs are systematically taken away (eg coalmining, shipbuilding, steel)these people do not have the skills to do whatever is left in the workplace. They have become institutionalised (through no fault of their own) to the industry they were in and are literally left to their own devices on benefits after the closures.
After a while when everyone has forgotten who made these closures (the decision makers) the people on the dole, who are now just statistics are branded idol to divert the publics attention from the real perpetrators of the economies downfall.
I think eveyone agrees that there is a hard core of benefit claimants who are idle to the bone and should be sorted out,there is a whole boatload of "the Establishment and their offspring who deserve similar treatment but hell no don,t go on about them,we are paying some footballers up to and above £200k a week for playing footie ffs,couldn,t these guys "employ" around 10 or so souls and put them to work it would make little or no difference to them financially but a huge difference to 10 or so families,there is a similar programme under way instigated by a young Glasgow entrepreuner,that to me is doing something positive.
Hmmm.
So nobody has the figures or can explain how things would be improved by these measures?
From what I can gather;
a) everybody thinks he's right
but
b) everybody thinks something's unfair.
It doesn't appear to be just the money or an economic thing. More a matter of folk on all sides feeling aggrieved.
In a way, it reminds me of what a gateman told me years ago at Kempton. I was complaining about the cost of entry and the lack of value for money.
He was one of those bighead ex-guarsdsmen whom we see at Ascot and Epsom too.
His reply was " Real racing people don't worry about the cost."
Maybe he was right, but all I can say is when I had plenty of luvve, I never concerned myself with what others were getting.
In my experience, the world runs on corruption, so we all have to make the best of it in our own particular way.
That's why I find it puzzling that folks who give the impression they're clever and good and rich seem so het up about misforunates and dossers.
My guess is that certain political parties must be running some sort of campaign aimed at getting the working classes to be diverted and divided.
It is even more comical when a bloke from Fife who told us that he inherited a fortune and now lives out of the UK, no doubt picking up a huge pension funded by the British taxpayers
starts telling us how we benefit so much from the "hard-working" wealthy.
One lesson I was taught esrly by a professional gambler was " work smarter not harder."
I'm sure that this lesson wouldn't be wasted on the "sharper brains" of betfarians, and I'm also pretty sure that the really successful on here couldn't care a fk about folk who may or not be on the rock and roll.
Why, until we get the proper figures, how would we know what difference any of this sh it makes?
Btw, when I used to work properly ( till I had my accident) I was a tunnel miner, self-employed basis. I trust that's good enough for ye, but, I don't suppose it is.
Now I just scrape along any old which way, as i don't qualify for fk all, bar a percentage of OAPension, which wouldn't pay my betting tax!
Good luck to ye all!
So nobody has the figures or can explain how things would be improved by these measures?
From what I can gather;
a) everybody thinks he's right
but
b) everybody thinks something's unfair.
It doesn't appear to be just the money or an economic thing. More a matter of folk on all sides feeling aggrieved.
In a way, it reminds me of what a gateman told me years ago at Kempton. I was complaining about the cost of entry and the lack of value for money.
He was one of those bighead ex-guarsdsmen whom we see at Ascot and Epsom too.
His reply was " Real racing people don't worry about the cost."
Maybe he was right, but all I can say is when I had plenty of luvve, I never concerned myself with what others were getting.
In my experience, the world runs on corruption, so we all have to make the best of it in our own particular way.
That's why I find it puzzling that folks who give the impression they're clever and good and rich seem so het up about misforunates and dossers.
My guess is that certain political parties must be running some sort of campaign aimed at getting the working classes to be diverted and divided.
It is even more comical when a bloke from Fife who told us that he inherited a fortune and now lives out of the UK, no doubt picking up a huge pension funded by the British taxpayers
starts telling us how we benefit so much from the "hard-working" wealthy.
One lesson I was taught esrly by a professional gambler was " work smarter not harder."
I'm sure that this lesson wouldn't be wasted on the "sharper brains" of betfarians, and I'm also pretty sure that the really successful on here couldn't care a fk about folk who may or not be on the rock and roll.
Why, until we get the proper figures, how would we know what difference any of this sh it makes?
Btw, when I used to work properly ( till I had my accident) I was a tunnel miner, self-employed basis. I trust that's good enough for ye, but, I don't suppose it is.
Now I just scrape along any old which way, as i don't qualify for fk all, bar a percentage of OAPension, which wouldn't pay my betting tax!
Good luck to ye all!
Good one Sean most of what you say is correct and for the ordinary folk they never had/have/will get a shout,there was a case a wee while back in the states about a financial guy who had a couple of birds on the go well he gave them the nod before this takeover was about to go down,they made close to £2mil between them in the blink of an eye and we are in crisis ye right.
you have to decide.
Do you want a system where you have full employment and perhaps the owners of capital are not quite as well off as they can possibly be?
Or do you want the system we have here in the UK and many other countries where industries are perpetually streamlined and made efficient so that you always have a huge population of unemployed?
The second system will always appear better on paper but in truth the money never goes from the top to the bottom.
If you wanted a rounded more contented society where peopple do not feel ostracized or marginalised then you go for the first system.
In truth the first system is very hard to achieve since the people in charge are totally non-altruistic and only do what is best for them.
My guess is that things will carry on like this for a few decades more,boom and bust, with each passing cycle resulting in a larger wealth gap.
It will end as all regimes end, in violence.
You cannot shame a rich man in to doing the right thing. However, if you make him fear for for his life or even end it then you can change the status quo.
The ballot box does not work
Do you want a system where you have full employment and perhaps the owners of capital are not quite as well off as they can possibly be?
Or do you want the system we have here in the UK and many other countries where industries are perpetually streamlined and made efficient so that you always have a huge population of unemployed?
The second system will always appear better on paper but in truth the money never goes from the top to the bottom.
If you wanted a rounded more contented society where peopple do not feel ostracized or marginalised then you go for the first system.
In truth the first system is very hard to achieve since the people in charge are totally non-altruistic and only do what is best for them.
My guess is that things will carry on like this for a few decades more,boom and bust, with each passing cycle resulting in a larger wealth gap.
It will end as all regimes end, in violence.
You cannot shame a rich man in to doing the right thing. However, if you make him fear for for his life or even end it then you can change the status quo.
The ballot box does not work
But you are talking as though all the money the govt spent went on "handouts" to scoungers
No I didn't, show me where I said that?
No I didn't, show me where I said that?
At the end of the day it is an absolute that the world can not sustain "growth" so there will have to be a change in lifestyle,quite what shape this will be?? your guess is as good as mine but change is going to come.
Or do you want the system we have here in the UK and many other countries where industries are perpetually streamlined and made efficient so that you always have a huge population of unemployed?
You've missed a bit, so I'll finish it off for you.
With a public sector that is too big for the private sector to sustain, and a level of taxation which prevents the private sector from expanding to creating enough of the jobs that are needed.
There you go.
You've missed a bit, so I'll finish it off for you.
With a public sector that is too big for the private sector to sustain, and a level of taxation which prevents the private sector from expanding to creating enough of the jobs that are needed.
There you go.
im afraid you have missed the point. it doesnt matter what you do with the tax. once optimum growth has been achieved via lowering taxation on companies what then? i mean some of them are already paying no tax arent they? i'll tell you what then. then they look for other ways to increase profits, streamlining, cutting corners over safety and environmental regulations. you could have 0% company tax and they would still sack people if they thought it would increase profitability.
in the 1960s an average CEO would earn 20 times the average salary. now an average CEO gets 250 times the average salary. (its no coincidence that there was almost full employment in the UK in the 60s)
that is what i mean about the wealth gap widening with each economic cycle.
in the same way people call for a ceiling on wages in other professions like football, the same should be true across the board.
closer salaries and full employment. a much happier existence for all
in the 1960s an average CEO would earn 20 times the average salary. now an average CEO gets 250 times the average salary. (its no coincidence that there was almost full employment in the UK in the 60s)
that is what i mean about the wealth gap widening with each economic cycle.
in the same way people call for a ceiling on wages in other professions like football, the same should be true across the board.
closer salaries and full employment. a much happier existence for all
im afraid you have missed the point.
The only point that begs any serious attention is this.
You cannot shame a rich man in to doing the right thing. However, if you make him fear for for his life or even end it then you can change the status quo.
The ballot box does not work
You're in the wrong country for that stuff mate.
The only point that begs any serious attention is this.
You cannot shame a rich man in to doing the right thing. However, if you make him fear for for his life or even end it then you can change the status quo.
The ballot box does not work
You're in the wrong country for that stuff mate.
Time to pull this thread fellas. Our opinions and political leanings are never going to be the same. THANKFULLY. I personally think we should demand the address of "Anaglogs" and bulldoze his house down! Unless he is a she? Anyone know??
19 Prime Ministers in this Country went to Eton Dr Crippen. So much for a meritocracy. This is a game and its a closed shop. Wise up cos they dont give a **** about you
levelstakes1
I wised up to your sort years ago, we're all far better off in a free society.
Your way only makes matters worse.
How many communist states can afford a welfare state of the size that we've provided for decades?
Communists have a hard enough job feeding themselves.
I wised up to your sort years ago, we're all far better off in a free society.
Your way only makes matters worse.
How many communist states can afford a welfare state of the size that we've provided for decades?
Communists have a hard enough job feeding themselves.
Labour voters take note!! This is what can happen!!
James Callaghan was born at 38 Funtington Road, Copnor, Portsmouth, England on 27 March 1912. He was named after his father, also James Callaghan (1887–1921), who was of Irish descent and was a Royal Navy Chief Petty Officer.[2] His mother was Charlotte Callaghan née Cundy (1879–1961). He had an older sister, Dorothy Gertrude Callaghan (born 1904). He attended Portsmouth Northern Secondary School (now Mayfield School). He gained the Senior Oxford Certificate in 1929, but could not afford entrance to university and instead sat the civil service Entrance Exam.
At the age of 17, Callaghan left to work as a clerk for the Inland Revenue. While working as a tax inspector, Callaghan was instrumental in establishing the Association of Officers of Taxes as a trade union for those in his profession and became a member of its national executive. While at the Inland Revenue offices in Kent, in 1931, he joined the Maidstone branch of the Labour Party. In 1934, he was transferred to Inland Revenue offices in London. Following a merger of unions in 1936, Callaghan was appointed a full-time union official and to the post of Assistant Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and resigned from his Civil Service duties.
His union position at the Inland Revenue Federation brought Callaghan into contact with Harold Laski, the Chairman of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee and an academic at the London School of Economics. Laski encouraged him to stand for Parliament, although later on, he requested Callaghan several times to study and lecture at the LSE. Callaghan joined the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve as an Ordinary Seaman in World War II from 1942 where he served in the East Indies Fleet and was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in April 1944.[3] While training for his promotion, his medical examination revealed that he was suffering from tuberculosis and was admitted to the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar in Gosport near Portsmouth. After he recovered, he was discharged and assigned to duties with the Admiralty in Whitehall. He was assigned to the Japanese section and wrote a service manual for the Royal Navy The Enemy Japan.
Whilst on leave, Callaghan was selected as a Parliamentary candidate for Cardiff South. He narrowly won the local party ballot with twelve votes against the next highest candidate George Thomas with eleven. He was encouraged to put his name forward for the Cardiff South seat by his friend Dai Kneath, a member of the IRSF National executive from Swansea, who was in turn an associate and friend of the local Labour Party secretary Bill Headon.[4] During 1945 he was assigned to the Indian Fleet and served on HMS Queen Elizabeth in the Indian Ocean. After VE Day, along with other prospective candidates he returned to the United Kingdom to stand in the general election.
[edit] 1945 to 1976: parliament and cabinet
Labour won a landslide victory on 26 July 1945 bringing Clement Attlee to power. Callaghan won his Cardiff South seat in the 1945 UK general election (and would hold a Cardiff-area seat continuously until 1987). He defeated the sitting Conservative incumbent candidate, Sir Arthur Evans, by 17,489 votes to 11,545. He campaigned on such issues as the rapid demobilisation of the armed forces and for a new housing construction programme.[5] At the time of his election, his son Michael was born.
Callaghan was soon appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in 1947 where, advised by the young chief constable of Hertfordshire Sir Arthur Young, his term saw important improvements in road safety, notably the introduction of zebra crossings, and an extension in the use of cat's eyes. He moved to be Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty from 1950 where he was a delegate to the Council of Europe and resisted plans for a European army.
Callaghan was popular with Labour MPs and was elected to the Shadow Cabinet every year while the Labour Party was in opposition from 1951 to 1964. He was Parliamentary Adviser to the Police Federation from 1955 to 1960 when he negotiated an increase in police pay with the then General Secretary Arthur Charles Evans. He ran for the Deputy Leadership of the party in 1960 as an opponent of unilateral nuclear disarmament, and despite the other candidate of the Labour right (George Brown) agreeing with him on this policy, he forced Brown to a second vote. In November 1961, Callaghan became shadow chancellor. When Hugh Gaitskell died in January 1963, Callaghan ran to succeed him but came third and the leadership contest was won by Harold Wilson. However, he did gain the support of right-wingers, such as Denis Healey and Anthony Crosland, who wanted to prevent Wilson from being elected leader but who also didn't trust George Brown.
[edit] Chancellor of the Exchequer
In October 1964, Conservative Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home (who had only been in power for 12 months since the resignation of Harold Macmillan) called a general election. It was a tough election, but Labour won a narrow majority, gaining 56 seats (a total of 317 to the Conservatives 309). The new Labour government under Harold Wilson immediately faced economic problems and Wilson acted within his first hours to appoint Callaghan as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new government had to cope with a balance of payments deficit and speculative attacks on Sterling. It was the policy of the whole government, and one in which Callaghan concurred, that devaluation should be avoided for as long as possible and he managed to arrange loans from other central banks and some tax rises in order to stabilise the economy. Callaghan's time as chancellor was to be during a time of crisis; with high inflation, high unemployment and an unstable economy with a deficit in the budget, a deficit in the balance of import and exports and most importantly conflict over the value of the pound.
On 11 November, Callaghan gave his first budget and announced increases in income tax, petrol tax and the introduction of a new capital gains tax, actions which most economists deemed necessary to take the heat out of the balance and sterling deficit, though international bankers disagreed.[6]
On 23 November, it was decided to increase the bank rate from 2% to 7% which generated a large amount of criticism. Handling the crisis was made more difficult by the attitude of Lord Cromer, the Governor of the Bank of England, who argued against the fiscal policies of the new Labour government. When Callaghan and Wilson threatened to call a new general election, the governor soon raised a £3 billion loan to stabilise the reserves and the deficit.[7] His second budget came on 6 April 1965, in which he announced efforts to deflate the economy and reduce home import demand by £250 million. Shortly afterwards, the bank rate was reduced from 7% down to 6%. For a brief time, the economy and British financial market stabilised, allowing in June for Callaghan to visit the United States and to discuss the state of the British economy with President Lyndon Baines Johnson and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
In July, the pound came under extreme pressure and Callaghan was forced to create harsh temporary measures to demonstrate control of the economy. These include suspending all current government building projects and postponing new pension plans. The alternative was to allow the pound to float or to devalue it. Callaghan and Wilson however were again adamant that a devaluation of the pound would create new social and economic problems and continued to take a firm stance against it.[8] The government continued to struggle both with the economy and with the slender majority which, by 1966, had been reduced to one. On 28 February, Harold Wilson formally announced an election for the 31 March 1966. On 1 March, Callaghan gave a 'little budget' to the Commons and announced the historic decision that the UK would adopt decimal currency. It was actually not until 1971, under a Conservative government, that the United Kingdom moved from the system of pounds, shillings and pence to a decimal system of 100 pence to the pound. He also announced a short-term mortgage scheme which allowed low-wage earners to maintain mortgage schemes in the face of economic difficulties. Soon afterwards, Labour won 363 seats compared to 252 seats against the Conservatives, giving the Labour government a large majority of 97.
Callaghan introduced his next Budget on 4 May. He had informed the house that he would bring a full Budget to the House when he made his 'little budget' speech prior to the election. The main point of his budget was the introduction of a Selective Employment Tax, penalising the service industry and favouring the manufacturing industry.[9][10] Twelve days after the budget, the National Union of Seamen called a national strike and the problems facing Sterling were multiplied.[11] Additional strikes caused the balance of payments deficit to increase and the 3.3 billion loan was now due. Unemployment was also rising; it had been just over 300,000 when Labour came to power, but two years later it was climbed to more than 500,000.
On 14 July, the bank rate was increased again to seven percent. On 20 July, Callaghan announced an emergency ten-point programme with a six-month freeze on wage and salary increases. By 1967, the economy had begun to stabilise once again and the bank rate was reduced to 6% in March and 5.5% in May.
It was under these conditions that Callaghan beat Michael Foot in a vote to become Treasurer of the Labour Party.
The economy was soon in turmoil again, with the Middle East crisis between Egypt and Israel raising oil prices. Furthermore, the economy was hit in mid-September when a national dock strike lasted for eight weeks. A run on Sterling began with the six-day war and with the closure of the Suez Canal and with the dock strike, the balance of payments deficit grew to a critical level. A Common Market report suggested that the pound could not be sustained as a reserve currency and it was suggested again that the pound should be devalued. Wilson and Callaghan refused a contingency fund offered from the IMF because of several conditions attached. On Wednesday 15 November, the historic decision was taken to commit the government to a 14.3% devaluation. The situation was a great political controversy at the time. As Denis Healey in his autobiography, notes:
“
Nowadays exchange rates can swing to and fro continually by amount greater than that, without attracting much attention outside the City columns of the newspapers. It may be difficult to understand how great a political humiliation this devaluation appeared at the time – above all to Wilson and his Chancellor, Jim Callaghan, who felt he must resign over it. Callaghan's personal distress was increased by a careless answer he gave to a backbencher's question two days before the formal devaluation. This cost Britain several hundred million pounds."[12]
”
Before the devaluation, Jim Callaghan had announced publicly to the Press and the House of Commons that he would not devalue, something he later said was necessary to maintain confidence in the pound and avoid creating jitters in the financial markets. Callaghan immediately offered his resignation as Chancellor and increasing political opposition forced Wilson to accept it. Wilson then moved Roy Jenkins, the Home Secretary, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Callaghan became the new Home Secretary on 30 November 1967.
[edit] Home Secretary
Callaghan's tenure as Home Secretary was marked by the emerging conflict in Northern Ireland and it was as Home Secretary that he took the decision to deploy British Army troops in the province after a request from the Ulster Unionist Government of Northern Ireland.
Callaghan was also responsible for the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968; a controversial piece of legislation prompted by Conservative assertions that an influx of Kenyan Asians would soon inundate the country. It passed through the Commons in a week and placed entry controls on holders of British passports who had "no substantial connection" with Britain by setting up a new system. In his memoirs Time and Chance, Callaghan wrote that introducing the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill had been an unwelcome task but that he did not regret it. He claimed the Asians had "discovered a loophole" and he told a BBC interviewer: "Public opinion in this country was extremely agitated, and the consideration that was in my mind was how we could preserve a proper sense of order in this country and, at the same time, do justice to these people – I had to balance both considerations". An opponent of the Act, Conservative MP Ian Gilmour, asserted that it was "brought in to keep the blacks out. If it had been the case that it was 5,000 white settlers who were coming in, the newspapers and politicians, Callaghan included, who were making all the fuss would have been quite pleased".
Also significant was the passing of the Race Relations Act in the same year, making it illegal to refuse employment, housing or education on the basis of ethnic background. The Act extended the powers of the Race Relations Board at the time, to deal with complaints of discrimination and unfair attitudes. It also set up a new supervisory body, the Community Relations Commission, to promote "harmonious community relations".[13] Presenting the Bill to Parliament, the Home Secretary, Jim Callaghan, said, "The House has rarely faced an issue of greater social significance for our country and our children."
In 1969, Callaghan, a strong supporter of the Labour–Trade Union link, led the successful opposition in a divided cabinet to Barbara Castle's White Paper "In Place of Strife" which sought to modify Trade Union law. Amongst its numerous proposals were plans to force unions to call a ballot before a strike was held and the establishment of an Industrial Board to enforce settlements in industrial disputes. Ironically, if the proposals had become law, many of the activities of the trades unions during the Winter of Discontent a decade later would have been illegal.
Following Wilson's unexpected defeat by Edward Heath in the 1970 General Election, Callaghan declined to challenge him for the leadership despite Wilson's vulnerability. This did much to rehabilitate him in Wilson's eyes. He was in charge of drawing up a new policy statement in 1972 which contained the idea of the Social Contract between the government and trade unions. He also did much to ensure that Labour opposed the Heath government's bid to enter the Common Market—forcing Wilson's hand by making his personal opposition clear without consulting the Party Leader.
[edit] Foreign Secretary
When Wilson won the next general election and returned as Prime Minister in March 1974, he appointed Callaghan as Foreign Secretary which gave him responsibility for renegotiating the terms of the United Kingdom's membership of the Common Market. When the talks concluded, Callaghan led the Cabinet in declaring the new terms acceptable and he supported a 'Yes' vote in the 1975 referendum.
[edit] Election as Leader of the Labour Party
Barely two years after beginning his second spell as prime minister, Wilson announced his surprise resignation on 16 March 1976, and unofficially endorsed Callaghan as his successor. Callaghan was the favourite to win the leadership, although he was the oldest candidate; he was also the most experienced and least divisive. Popularity with all parts of the Labour movement saw him through the ballot of Labour MPs to win the leadership vote. On 5 April 1976, at the age of 64 years and 9 days, Callaghan became Prime Minister – the oldest person to become Prime Minister at time of appointment since Winston Churchill.
[edit] Prime Minister
Callaghan was the only Prime Minister to have held all three leading Cabinet positions – Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary – prior to becoming Prime Minister.
Callaghan meets with US President Jimmy Carter, 1978.
During his first year in office, Callaghan started what has since become known as 'The Great Debate', when he spoke at Ruskin College, Oxford about the 'legitimate concerns' of a public about education as it took place in the nation's maintained schools. This discussion led to greater involvement of the government, through its ministries, in the curriculum and administration of state education, leading to the eventual introduction of the National Curriculum some ten years later.[14]
James Callaghan at the 1978 TUC sings "Waiting at the Church" to convey that there would be no General Election that year. On television, however, he had a different message: that, if he called the election, the Conservatives would not be prepared.
Callaghan's time as Prime Minister was dominated by the troubles in running a Government with a minority in the House of Commons: he was forced to make deals with minor parties in order to survive – including the Lib-Lab pact, and he had been forced to accept referendums on devolution in Scotland and Wales (the former went in favour but did not reach the required majority, and the latter went heavily against). He also became prime minister at a time when Britain was suffering from double-digit inflation and rising unemployment. He responded to the economic crises by adopting deflationary policies in order to reduce inflation, and cutting public expenditure – a precursor to the monetarist economic policies that the next government, a Conservative one led by Margaret Thatcher, would pursue in order to ease the crises.[15]
Callaghan and his ministers did, however, introduce a number of reforms during their time in office. The Rent (Agricultural) Act of November 1976 provided security of tenure for agricultural workers in tied accommodation, while the Bail Act introduced that same year reformed bail conditions with courts having to explain refusal of bail. The Police Act of August 1976 set up a Police Complaints Board “to formalise the procedure for dealing with public complaints.” The Education Act of November 1976 limited the taking up of independent and direct-grant school places and required all local authorities who had failed to do so “to submit proposals for comprehensive schools,” while the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act of 1977 extended local authority responsibility “to provide accommodation for homeless people in their area,”[16] and instituted the right of homeless families to a permanent local authority tenancy.[17] In addition, efforts were made under Peter Shore to redistribute resources towards deprived urban areas.[18]
Despite these difficulties, over the summer of 1978 (shortly after the end of the Lib-Lab pact)[19] most opinion polls showed Labour ahead, and the expectation grew that Callaghan would call an autumn election that would have given him a second term in office until autumn 1983.
Famously, he strung along the opposition and was expected to make his declaration of election in a broadcast on 7 September 1978.[20] His decision to put off the election, at the time, seen by many as a sign of his domination of the political scene and he ridiculed his opponents by singing old-time music hall star Vesta Victoria's song "Waiting at the Church" at that month's Trades Union Congress meeting: now seen as one of the greatest moments of hubris in modern British politics, but celebrated at the time. Callaghan intended to convey the message that he had not promised an election, but most observers misread his message as an assertion that he would call an election, and the Conservatives would not be ready for it.
[edit] "Winter of Discontent"
Main article: Winter of Discontent
Callaghan's method of dealing with the long-term economic difficulties involved pay restraint which had been operating for four years with reasonable success. He gambled that a fifth year would further improve the economy and allow him to be re-elected in 1979, and so attempted to hold pay rises to 5% or less. The trade unions rejected continued pay restraint and in a succession of strikes over the winter of 1978–79 (known as the Winter of Discontent) secured higher pay. The industrial unrest made his government extremely unpopular, and Callaghan's response to one interview question only made it worse. Returning to the United Kingdom from an economic summit held in Guadeloupe in early 1979, Callaghan was asked, "What is your general approach, in view of the mounting chaos in the country at the moment?" Callaghan replied, "Well, that's a judgement that you are making. I promise you that if you look at it from outside, and perhaps you're taking rather a parochial view at the moment, I don't think that other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos." This reply was reported in The Sun under the headline "Crisis? What Crisis?". Callaghan also later admitted in regard to the Winter of Discontent that he had "let the country down".[21]
The Winter of Discontent saw Labour's performance in the opinion polls slump dramatically. They had topped most of the pre-winter opinion polls by several points, but in February 1979 at least one opinion poll was showing the Tories 20 points ahead of Labour and it appeared certain that Labour would lose the forthcoming election.[22]
In the build up to the election, the Daily Mirror and The Guardian supported Labour, while The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, and The Daily Telegraph supported the Conservatives.[23]
On 28 March 1979, the House of Commons passed a Motion of No Confidence by one vote, 311–310, which forced Callaghan to call a general election that was held on 3 May.[24] The Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher ran a campaign on the slogan "Labour isn't working" and won the election.
Callaghan's failure to call an election during 1978 was widely seen as a political miscalculation; after losing power in the election, Labour would spend the next 18 years in opposition.[25]
[edit] Resignation, backbenches and retirement
At the Guadelupe Conference, 1979
left to right: Helmut Schmidt, Jimmy Carter, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, James Callaghan.
Callaghan resigned as leader of the Labour Party on 15 October 1980, shortly after the 1980 party conference had voted for a new system of election by electoral college involving the individual members and trade unions. His resignation ensured that his successor would be elected by MPs only. In the second round of a campaign that laid bare the deep internal divisions of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Michael Foot narrowly beat Denis Healey to succeed Callaghan as leader.
In 1982, along with his friend Gerald Ford, he co-founded the annual AEI World Forum.
In 1983, he attacked Labour's plans to reduce defence,[26][27] and the same year became Father of the House as the longest continuously serving member of the Commons. He was by this time one of only three survivors of the 1945 general election, but the only one with continuous service. Michael Foot and Ian Mikardo also remained of the 1945 intake, but Michael Foot had been out of the House from 1955 to 1960 and Mikardo from 1959 to 1964.
In 1987, he was made a Knight of the Garter and stood down at the 1987 general election after 42 years as a member of the Commons. Shortly afterwards, he was elevated to the House of Lords as Baron Callaghan of Cardiff, of the City of Cardiff in the Royal County of South Glamorganshire. In 1987, his autobiography, Time and Chance, was published. He also served as a non-executive director of the Bank of Wales.
In 1988, Callaghan's wife Audrey, a former chairman (1969–1982) of Great Ormond Street Hospital, spotted a letter to a newspaper which pointed out that the copyright of Peter Pan, which had been assigned by J. M. Barrie to the hospital, was about to expire. Callaghan moved an amendment to the Copyright Bill then under consideration in the Lords to extend the term under which the hospital could continue to collect royalties, despite the lapse of copyright, and this was accepted by the government.
In July 1996, he was awarded an honorary degree from the Open University as Doctor of the University.[citation needed]
In October 1999, Callaghan told The Oldie Magazine that he would not be surprised to be considered as Britain's worst prime minister in 200 years. He also admitted in this interview that he "must carry the can" for the Winter of Discontent
James Callaghan was born at 38 Funtington Road, Copnor, Portsmouth, England on 27 March 1912. He was named after his father, also James Callaghan (1887–1921), who was of Irish descent and was a Royal Navy Chief Petty Officer.[2] His mother was Charlotte Callaghan née Cundy (1879–1961). He had an older sister, Dorothy Gertrude Callaghan (born 1904). He attended Portsmouth Northern Secondary School (now Mayfield School). He gained the Senior Oxford Certificate in 1929, but could not afford entrance to university and instead sat the civil service Entrance Exam.
At the age of 17, Callaghan left to work as a clerk for the Inland Revenue. While working as a tax inspector, Callaghan was instrumental in establishing the Association of Officers of Taxes as a trade union for those in his profession and became a member of its national executive. While at the Inland Revenue offices in Kent, in 1931, he joined the Maidstone branch of the Labour Party. In 1934, he was transferred to Inland Revenue offices in London. Following a merger of unions in 1936, Callaghan was appointed a full-time union official and to the post of Assistant Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and resigned from his Civil Service duties.
His union position at the Inland Revenue Federation brought Callaghan into contact with Harold Laski, the Chairman of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee and an academic at the London School of Economics. Laski encouraged him to stand for Parliament, although later on, he requested Callaghan several times to study and lecture at the LSE. Callaghan joined the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve as an Ordinary Seaman in World War II from 1942 where he served in the East Indies Fleet and was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in April 1944.[3] While training for his promotion, his medical examination revealed that he was suffering from tuberculosis and was admitted to the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar in Gosport near Portsmouth. After he recovered, he was discharged and assigned to duties with the Admiralty in Whitehall. He was assigned to the Japanese section and wrote a service manual for the Royal Navy The Enemy Japan.
Whilst on leave, Callaghan was selected as a Parliamentary candidate for Cardiff South. He narrowly won the local party ballot with twelve votes against the next highest candidate George Thomas with eleven. He was encouraged to put his name forward for the Cardiff South seat by his friend Dai Kneath, a member of the IRSF National executive from Swansea, who was in turn an associate and friend of the local Labour Party secretary Bill Headon.[4] During 1945 he was assigned to the Indian Fleet and served on HMS Queen Elizabeth in the Indian Ocean. After VE Day, along with other prospective candidates he returned to the United Kingdom to stand in the general election.
[edit] 1945 to 1976: parliament and cabinet
Labour won a landslide victory on 26 July 1945 bringing Clement Attlee to power. Callaghan won his Cardiff South seat in the 1945 UK general election (and would hold a Cardiff-area seat continuously until 1987). He defeated the sitting Conservative incumbent candidate, Sir Arthur Evans, by 17,489 votes to 11,545. He campaigned on such issues as the rapid demobilisation of the armed forces and for a new housing construction programme.[5] At the time of his election, his son Michael was born.
Callaghan was soon appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in 1947 where, advised by the young chief constable of Hertfordshire Sir Arthur Young, his term saw important improvements in road safety, notably the introduction of zebra crossings, and an extension in the use of cat's eyes. He moved to be Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty from 1950 where he was a delegate to the Council of Europe and resisted plans for a European army.
Callaghan was popular with Labour MPs and was elected to the Shadow Cabinet every year while the Labour Party was in opposition from 1951 to 1964. He was Parliamentary Adviser to the Police Federation from 1955 to 1960 when he negotiated an increase in police pay with the then General Secretary Arthur Charles Evans. He ran for the Deputy Leadership of the party in 1960 as an opponent of unilateral nuclear disarmament, and despite the other candidate of the Labour right (George Brown) agreeing with him on this policy, he forced Brown to a second vote. In November 1961, Callaghan became shadow chancellor. When Hugh Gaitskell died in January 1963, Callaghan ran to succeed him but came third and the leadership contest was won by Harold Wilson. However, he did gain the support of right-wingers, such as Denis Healey and Anthony Crosland, who wanted to prevent Wilson from being elected leader but who also didn't trust George Brown.
[edit] Chancellor of the Exchequer
In October 1964, Conservative Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home (who had only been in power for 12 months since the resignation of Harold Macmillan) called a general election. It was a tough election, but Labour won a narrow majority, gaining 56 seats (a total of 317 to the Conservatives 309). The new Labour government under Harold Wilson immediately faced economic problems and Wilson acted within his first hours to appoint Callaghan as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new government had to cope with a balance of payments deficit and speculative attacks on Sterling. It was the policy of the whole government, and one in which Callaghan concurred, that devaluation should be avoided for as long as possible and he managed to arrange loans from other central banks and some tax rises in order to stabilise the economy. Callaghan's time as chancellor was to be during a time of crisis; with high inflation, high unemployment and an unstable economy with a deficit in the budget, a deficit in the balance of import and exports and most importantly conflict over the value of the pound.
On 11 November, Callaghan gave his first budget and announced increases in income tax, petrol tax and the introduction of a new capital gains tax, actions which most economists deemed necessary to take the heat out of the balance and sterling deficit, though international bankers disagreed.[6]
On 23 November, it was decided to increase the bank rate from 2% to 7% which generated a large amount of criticism. Handling the crisis was made more difficult by the attitude of Lord Cromer, the Governor of the Bank of England, who argued against the fiscal policies of the new Labour government. When Callaghan and Wilson threatened to call a new general election, the governor soon raised a £3 billion loan to stabilise the reserves and the deficit.[7] His second budget came on 6 April 1965, in which he announced efforts to deflate the economy and reduce home import demand by £250 million. Shortly afterwards, the bank rate was reduced from 7% down to 6%. For a brief time, the economy and British financial market stabilised, allowing in June for Callaghan to visit the United States and to discuss the state of the British economy with President Lyndon Baines Johnson and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
In July, the pound came under extreme pressure and Callaghan was forced to create harsh temporary measures to demonstrate control of the economy. These include suspending all current government building projects and postponing new pension plans. The alternative was to allow the pound to float or to devalue it. Callaghan and Wilson however were again adamant that a devaluation of the pound would create new social and economic problems and continued to take a firm stance against it.[8] The government continued to struggle both with the economy and with the slender majority which, by 1966, had been reduced to one. On 28 February, Harold Wilson formally announced an election for the 31 March 1966. On 1 March, Callaghan gave a 'little budget' to the Commons and announced the historic decision that the UK would adopt decimal currency. It was actually not until 1971, under a Conservative government, that the United Kingdom moved from the system of pounds, shillings and pence to a decimal system of 100 pence to the pound. He also announced a short-term mortgage scheme which allowed low-wage earners to maintain mortgage schemes in the face of economic difficulties. Soon afterwards, Labour won 363 seats compared to 252 seats against the Conservatives, giving the Labour government a large majority of 97.
Callaghan introduced his next Budget on 4 May. He had informed the house that he would bring a full Budget to the House when he made his 'little budget' speech prior to the election. The main point of his budget was the introduction of a Selective Employment Tax, penalising the service industry and favouring the manufacturing industry.[9][10] Twelve days after the budget, the National Union of Seamen called a national strike and the problems facing Sterling were multiplied.[11] Additional strikes caused the balance of payments deficit to increase and the 3.3 billion loan was now due. Unemployment was also rising; it had been just over 300,000 when Labour came to power, but two years later it was climbed to more than 500,000.
On 14 July, the bank rate was increased again to seven percent. On 20 July, Callaghan announced an emergency ten-point programme with a six-month freeze on wage and salary increases. By 1967, the economy had begun to stabilise once again and the bank rate was reduced to 6% in March and 5.5% in May.
It was under these conditions that Callaghan beat Michael Foot in a vote to become Treasurer of the Labour Party.
The economy was soon in turmoil again, with the Middle East crisis between Egypt and Israel raising oil prices. Furthermore, the economy was hit in mid-September when a national dock strike lasted for eight weeks. A run on Sterling began with the six-day war and with the closure of the Suez Canal and with the dock strike, the balance of payments deficit grew to a critical level. A Common Market report suggested that the pound could not be sustained as a reserve currency and it was suggested again that the pound should be devalued. Wilson and Callaghan refused a contingency fund offered from the IMF because of several conditions attached. On Wednesday 15 November, the historic decision was taken to commit the government to a 14.3% devaluation. The situation was a great political controversy at the time. As Denis Healey in his autobiography, notes:
“
Nowadays exchange rates can swing to and fro continually by amount greater than that, without attracting much attention outside the City columns of the newspapers. It may be difficult to understand how great a political humiliation this devaluation appeared at the time – above all to Wilson and his Chancellor, Jim Callaghan, who felt he must resign over it. Callaghan's personal distress was increased by a careless answer he gave to a backbencher's question two days before the formal devaluation. This cost Britain several hundred million pounds."[12]
”
Before the devaluation, Jim Callaghan had announced publicly to the Press and the House of Commons that he would not devalue, something he later said was necessary to maintain confidence in the pound and avoid creating jitters in the financial markets. Callaghan immediately offered his resignation as Chancellor and increasing political opposition forced Wilson to accept it. Wilson then moved Roy Jenkins, the Home Secretary, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Callaghan became the new Home Secretary on 30 November 1967.
[edit] Home Secretary
Callaghan's tenure as Home Secretary was marked by the emerging conflict in Northern Ireland and it was as Home Secretary that he took the decision to deploy British Army troops in the province after a request from the Ulster Unionist Government of Northern Ireland.
Callaghan was also responsible for the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968; a controversial piece of legislation prompted by Conservative assertions that an influx of Kenyan Asians would soon inundate the country. It passed through the Commons in a week and placed entry controls on holders of British passports who had "no substantial connection" with Britain by setting up a new system. In his memoirs Time and Chance, Callaghan wrote that introducing the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill had been an unwelcome task but that he did not regret it. He claimed the Asians had "discovered a loophole" and he told a BBC interviewer: "Public opinion in this country was extremely agitated, and the consideration that was in my mind was how we could preserve a proper sense of order in this country and, at the same time, do justice to these people – I had to balance both considerations". An opponent of the Act, Conservative MP Ian Gilmour, asserted that it was "brought in to keep the blacks out. If it had been the case that it was 5,000 white settlers who were coming in, the newspapers and politicians, Callaghan included, who were making all the fuss would have been quite pleased".
Also significant was the passing of the Race Relations Act in the same year, making it illegal to refuse employment, housing or education on the basis of ethnic background. The Act extended the powers of the Race Relations Board at the time, to deal with complaints of discrimination and unfair attitudes. It also set up a new supervisory body, the Community Relations Commission, to promote "harmonious community relations".[13] Presenting the Bill to Parliament, the Home Secretary, Jim Callaghan, said, "The House has rarely faced an issue of greater social significance for our country and our children."
In 1969, Callaghan, a strong supporter of the Labour–Trade Union link, led the successful opposition in a divided cabinet to Barbara Castle's White Paper "In Place of Strife" which sought to modify Trade Union law. Amongst its numerous proposals were plans to force unions to call a ballot before a strike was held and the establishment of an Industrial Board to enforce settlements in industrial disputes. Ironically, if the proposals had become law, many of the activities of the trades unions during the Winter of Discontent a decade later would have been illegal.
Following Wilson's unexpected defeat by Edward Heath in the 1970 General Election, Callaghan declined to challenge him for the leadership despite Wilson's vulnerability. This did much to rehabilitate him in Wilson's eyes. He was in charge of drawing up a new policy statement in 1972 which contained the idea of the Social Contract between the government and trade unions. He also did much to ensure that Labour opposed the Heath government's bid to enter the Common Market—forcing Wilson's hand by making his personal opposition clear without consulting the Party Leader.
[edit] Foreign Secretary
When Wilson won the next general election and returned as Prime Minister in March 1974, he appointed Callaghan as Foreign Secretary which gave him responsibility for renegotiating the terms of the United Kingdom's membership of the Common Market. When the talks concluded, Callaghan led the Cabinet in declaring the new terms acceptable and he supported a 'Yes' vote in the 1975 referendum.
[edit] Election as Leader of the Labour Party
Barely two years after beginning his second spell as prime minister, Wilson announced his surprise resignation on 16 March 1976, and unofficially endorsed Callaghan as his successor. Callaghan was the favourite to win the leadership, although he was the oldest candidate; he was also the most experienced and least divisive. Popularity with all parts of the Labour movement saw him through the ballot of Labour MPs to win the leadership vote. On 5 April 1976, at the age of 64 years and 9 days, Callaghan became Prime Minister – the oldest person to become Prime Minister at time of appointment since Winston Churchill.
[edit] Prime Minister
Callaghan was the only Prime Minister to have held all three leading Cabinet positions – Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary – prior to becoming Prime Minister.
Callaghan meets with US President Jimmy Carter, 1978.
During his first year in office, Callaghan started what has since become known as 'The Great Debate', when he spoke at Ruskin College, Oxford about the 'legitimate concerns' of a public about education as it took place in the nation's maintained schools. This discussion led to greater involvement of the government, through its ministries, in the curriculum and administration of state education, leading to the eventual introduction of the National Curriculum some ten years later.[14]
James Callaghan at the 1978 TUC sings "Waiting at the Church" to convey that there would be no General Election that year. On television, however, he had a different message: that, if he called the election, the Conservatives would not be prepared.
Callaghan's time as Prime Minister was dominated by the troubles in running a Government with a minority in the House of Commons: he was forced to make deals with minor parties in order to survive – including the Lib-Lab pact, and he had been forced to accept referendums on devolution in Scotland and Wales (the former went in favour but did not reach the required majority, and the latter went heavily against). He also became prime minister at a time when Britain was suffering from double-digit inflation and rising unemployment. He responded to the economic crises by adopting deflationary policies in order to reduce inflation, and cutting public expenditure – a precursor to the monetarist economic policies that the next government, a Conservative one led by Margaret Thatcher, would pursue in order to ease the crises.[15]
Callaghan and his ministers did, however, introduce a number of reforms during their time in office. The Rent (Agricultural) Act of November 1976 provided security of tenure for agricultural workers in tied accommodation, while the Bail Act introduced that same year reformed bail conditions with courts having to explain refusal of bail. The Police Act of August 1976 set up a Police Complaints Board “to formalise the procedure for dealing with public complaints.” The Education Act of November 1976 limited the taking up of independent and direct-grant school places and required all local authorities who had failed to do so “to submit proposals for comprehensive schools,” while the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act of 1977 extended local authority responsibility “to provide accommodation for homeless people in their area,”[16] and instituted the right of homeless families to a permanent local authority tenancy.[17] In addition, efforts were made under Peter Shore to redistribute resources towards deprived urban areas.[18]
Despite these difficulties, over the summer of 1978 (shortly after the end of the Lib-Lab pact)[19] most opinion polls showed Labour ahead, and the expectation grew that Callaghan would call an autumn election that would have given him a second term in office until autumn 1983.
Famously, he strung along the opposition and was expected to make his declaration of election in a broadcast on 7 September 1978.[20] His decision to put off the election, at the time, seen by many as a sign of his domination of the political scene and he ridiculed his opponents by singing old-time music hall star Vesta Victoria's song "Waiting at the Church" at that month's Trades Union Congress meeting: now seen as one of the greatest moments of hubris in modern British politics, but celebrated at the time. Callaghan intended to convey the message that he had not promised an election, but most observers misread his message as an assertion that he would call an election, and the Conservatives would not be ready for it.
[edit] "Winter of Discontent"
Main article: Winter of Discontent
Callaghan's method of dealing with the long-term economic difficulties involved pay restraint which had been operating for four years with reasonable success. He gambled that a fifth year would further improve the economy and allow him to be re-elected in 1979, and so attempted to hold pay rises to 5% or less. The trade unions rejected continued pay restraint and in a succession of strikes over the winter of 1978–79 (known as the Winter of Discontent) secured higher pay. The industrial unrest made his government extremely unpopular, and Callaghan's response to one interview question only made it worse. Returning to the United Kingdom from an economic summit held in Guadeloupe in early 1979, Callaghan was asked, "What is your general approach, in view of the mounting chaos in the country at the moment?" Callaghan replied, "Well, that's a judgement that you are making. I promise you that if you look at it from outside, and perhaps you're taking rather a parochial view at the moment, I don't think that other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos." This reply was reported in The Sun under the headline "Crisis? What Crisis?". Callaghan also later admitted in regard to the Winter of Discontent that he had "let the country down".[21]
The Winter of Discontent saw Labour's performance in the opinion polls slump dramatically. They had topped most of the pre-winter opinion polls by several points, but in February 1979 at least one opinion poll was showing the Tories 20 points ahead of Labour and it appeared certain that Labour would lose the forthcoming election.[22]
In the build up to the election, the Daily Mirror and The Guardian supported Labour, while The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, and The Daily Telegraph supported the Conservatives.[23]
On 28 March 1979, the House of Commons passed a Motion of No Confidence by one vote, 311–310, which forced Callaghan to call a general election that was held on 3 May.[24] The Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher ran a campaign on the slogan "Labour isn't working" and won the election.
Callaghan's failure to call an election during 1978 was widely seen as a political miscalculation; after losing power in the election, Labour would spend the next 18 years in opposition.[25]
[edit] Resignation, backbenches and retirement
At the Guadelupe Conference, 1979
left to right: Helmut Schmidt, Jimmy Carter, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, James Callaghan.
Callaghan resigned as leader of the Labour Party on 15 October 1980, shortly after the 1980 party conference had voted for a new system of election by electoral college involving the individual members and trade unions. His resignation ensured that his successor would be elected by MPs only. In the second round of a campaign that laid bare the deep internal divisions of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Michael Foot narrowly beat Denis Healey to succeed Callaghan as leader.
In 1982, along with his friend Gerald Ford, he co-founded the annual AEI World Forum.
In 1983, he attacked Labour's plans to reduce defence,[26][27] and the same year became Father of the House as the longest continuously serving member of the Commons. He was by this time one of only three survivors of the 1945 general election, but the only one with continuous service. Michael Foot and Ian Mikardo also remained of the 1945 intake, but Michael Foot had been out of the House from 1955 to 1960 and Mikardo from 1959 to 1964.
In 1987, he was made a Knight of the Garter and stood down at the 1987 general election after 42 years as a member of the Commons. Shortly afterwards, he was elevated to the House of Lords as Baron Callaghan of Cardiff, of the City of Cardiff in the Royal County of South Glamorganshire. In 1987, his autobiography, Time and Chance, was published. He also served as a non-executive director of the Bank of Wales.
In 1988, Callaghan's wife Audrey, a former chairman (1969–1982) of Great Ormond Street Hospital, spotted a letter to a newspaper which pointed out that the copyright of Peter Pan, which had been assigned by J. M. Barrie to the hospital, was about to expire. Callaghan moved an amendment to the Copyright Bill then under consideration in the Lords to extend the term under which the hospital could continue to collect royalties, despite the lapse of copyright, and this was accepted by the government.
In July 1996, he was awarded an honorary degree from the Open University as Doctor of the University.[citation needed]
In October 1999, Callaghan told The Oldie Magazine that he would not be surprised to be considered as Britain's worst prime minister in 200 years. He also admitted in this interview that he "must carry the can" for the Winter of Discontent
you are inventing your own replies now dr Crippen, naughty naughty. I never mentioned communism once.
I said when a regime ends it always does so in violence.
Even Communist regimes end and they end violently as well.
People do not relinquish power without a struggle.
This system is failing and eventually it will be replaced by something else. When it does get replaced it will be done so with violence.
If you think that when you are putting your cross on a piece of paper every 4 years you are initiating a change then you are mistaken.
All you are doing is perpetuating what is currently on offer.
As i said with each passing trade cycle the gap widens. A smaller percentage of the population with a bigger percentage of the wealth.
You always reach a point where people have nothing to lose. The point when someone who was once defined as a criminal actually becomes a hero in the folklore of the next new order.
It will happen. Its inevitable
I said when a regime ends it always does so in violence.
Even Communist regimes end and they end violently as well.
People do not relinquish power without a struggle.
This system is failing and eventually it will be replaced by something else. When it does get replaced it will be done so with violence.
If you think that when you are putting your cross on a piece of paper every 4 years you are initiating a change then you are mistaken.
All you are doing is perpetuating what is currently on offer.
As i said with each passing trade cycle the gap widens. A smaller percentage of the population with a bigger percentage of the wealth.
You always reach a point where people have nothing to lose. The point when someone who was once defined as a criminal actually becomes a hero in the folklore of the next new order.
It will happen. Its inevitable
When I say you are talking as though all the goernment spends money on is scroungers Crippen it's because you mention very little else except immigration these days.
You may well think the government wastes money on other things but I can only draw on what I read on here.
You may well think the government wastes money on other things but I can only draw on what I read on here.
The only difference between fascism and the conservative right flanks is that in fascism the poor are beaten
with batons and fists and with the home bred right it is done by convincing the electorate that
although the party have no real clue or direction for empowering the economy, its fine to find
someone lower down the social ladder and break them down.
And if you fail to make the connection below is a statement form Wikipedia.
There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists,[5][6][7][8] and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.[9]
And by the words of the great law of the jungle
In respect of poor bashing, jew extermination and the other games of the right.
"What comes around, gos around"
with batons and fists and with the home bred right it is done by convincing the electorate that
although the party have no real clue or direction for empowering the economy, its fine to find
someone lower down the social ladder and break them down.
And if you fail to make the connection below is a statement form Wikipedia.
There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists,[5][6][7][8] and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.[9]
And by the words of the great law of the jungle
In respect of poor bashing, jew extermination and the other games of the right.
"What comes around, gos around"
Incidentally I think it was long ago established AD is a bloke masquerading as a mare,but as I named myself after a gelding I'm saying no more. Except there used to be a forumite called George Washington.
Interesting stuff, but still no definitive and categorical replies regarding the figures.
I remember all the stuff about Callaghan and, please note all ye lads who can't, the bstrd was yet another who restrained wages.
In fact, all the names mentioned, especially, Macmillan, Douglas Home, Wilson, Callaghan, Healy, and Thatcher
were all pure bstrds as far as the working class was concerned.
This was to be expected.
Being anti-Labour party is NOT an adequate reason to bring in benefit cuts without having due regard to the figures. I realise that it's all a bit of a City v United tribal loyalty thing, but
when politics gets on the racing forum
there should be some reasonable facts and figures to consider, if for nothing else than
to make wading through all this sh ite worth the effort.
Most of us don't really know what t f is going down, and there's no way the rulers will ever tell us the whole truth.
Sure, they get poor old Dave C to keep apologising for the lies and murders committed years ago, or for his mates hacking the phone of a young girl murdered, but, at the end of the day, we
haven't time to waste farting about with these cnts. All the rulers are bstrds and there's no sense in pretending they're not. The game, like racing, is as corrupt as fk.
There IS a better way, but, it will take a lot of work and effort. Fking about with taxation is NOT the way.
Anyway, happy betting all!
I remember all the stuff about Callaghan and, please note all ye lads who can't, the bstrd was yet another who restrained wages.
In fact, all the names mentioned, especially, Macmillan, Douglas Home, Wilson, Callaghan, Healy, and Thatcher
were all pure bstrds as far as the working class was concerned.
This was to be expected.
Being anti-Labour party is NOT an adequate reason to bring in benefit cuts without having due regard to the figures. I realise that it's all a bit of a City v United tribal loyalty thing, but
when politics gets on the racing forum
there should be some reasonable facts and figures to consider, if for nothing else than
to make wading through all this sh ite worth the effort.
Most of us don't really know what t f is going down, and there's no way the rulers will ever tell us the whole truth.
Sure, they get poor old Dave C to keep apologising for the lies and murders committed years ago, or for his mates hacking the phone of a young girl murdered, but, at the end of the day, we
haven't time to waste farting about with these cnts. All the rulers are bstrds and there's no sense in pretending they're not. The game, like racing, is as corrupt as fk.
There IS a better way, but, it will take a lot of work and effort. Fking about with taxation is NOT the way.
Anyway, happy betting all!
levelstakes1,
What else are you suggesting if you're not suggesting communism?
We've just had thirteen years of New Labour who expanded the private sector and the country is worse off than ever.
Simply knocking the systen that provides your living or your benefits isn't enough.
If you think you can replace our system with something better then what is it?
What else are you suggesting if you're not suggesting communism?
We've just had thirteen years of New Labour who expanded the private sector and the country is worse off than ever.
Simply knocking the systen that provides your living or your benefits isn't enough.
If you think you can replace our system with something better then what is it?
Okay levelstakes1, I'll keep it simple for you.
Out of the political parties that are on offer in this country, which one comes closest to your ideal party?
Out of the political parties that are on offer in this country, which one comes closest to your ideal party?
''We've just had thirteen years of New Labour who expanded the private sector and the country is worse off than ever.''
That was a slip, I meant to say the public sector.
That was a slip, I meant to say the public sector.
doc you know he aint saying anything about how to reform the system, it doesnt matter how you reform it,he is saying that in the end the law of the jungle will prevail and a new system will prevail, it is without a shadow of a doubt going to happen, capitalism will suck more and more of the human product [wealth] up between fewer and fewer people, in the end , the disposed will rise up, always has been that way, and always will be, cant change human nature, you can only modify it a'lil while through fear or reward, when the reward is removed, fear only has a limited shelf-life.
There are not many people incapable of some work (even me !!)...
No-one should be paid to do nothing and that is fact.The Welfare System was set up to TEMPORARILY help out those in times of need..
Like every other Labour invention it has come back to bite us in the ass...
No-one should be paid to do nothing and that is fact.The Welfare System was set up to TEMPORARILY help out those in times of need..
Like every other Labour invention it has come back to bite us in the ass...
the disposed will rise up,
manxy,
You've got to be joking, the ones were discussing here are to idle to rise up in the morning and get out of bed.
Rise up indeed, I'd post that one politics they like a good laugh over there.
manxy,
You've got to be joking, the ones were discussing here are to idle to rise up in the morning and get out of bed.
Rise up indeed, I'd post that one politics they like a good laugh over there.
a multitude of empty stomachs rising up would make the toxteth and london riots look like a picnic in the park.
and as the lad says, its inevitable, as each economic 10/20 year cycle dis-enfrachises more and more people/countries.
and as the lad says, its inevitable, as each economic 10/20 year cycle dis-enfrachises more and more people/countries.
‘’Empty stomachs’’ what empty stomachs? Apart from self inflicted hardship.
Here’s an old saying:
‘’The rich get rich and the poor get poorer’’ this is often bandied about as a statement of fact.
But case is that the poor only get poorer in relation to the rich.
The poor continue to get better off in real terms, they simply get better off at a slower rate than the rich do.
In short, the poor have never had it so good.
Here’s an old saying:
‘’The rich get rich and the poor get poorer’’ this is often bandied about as a statement of fact.
But case is that the poor only get poorer in relation to the rich.
The poor continue to get better off in real terms, they simply get better off at a slower rate than the rich do.
In short, the poor have never had it so good.
When I say you are talking as though all the goernment spends money on is scroungers Crippen it's because you mention very little else except immigration these days.
You may well think the government wastes money on other things but I can only draw on what I read on here.
Try reading a few threads about other topics then SS if you seek my opinions, perhaps it's your interests that are narrow not mine.
You may well think the government wastes money on other things but I can only draw on what I read on here.
Try reading a few threads about other topics then SS if you seek my opinions, perhaps it's your interests that are narrow not mine.
aye, crippen righto, this world we live in, will over the next 40 years at some point explode like a huge volcano, and a new world will take shape, as natural rescourses become scarcer and scarcer.
manxy...
will they be rising up from the Council Estate in Ballasalla...
will they be rising up from the Council Estate in Ballasalla...
a percentage "deduction" all round will hit the poor far ore than it will hit the rich
in the next financial "cycle" (pmsl) maybe the gamblers in the banks can stop and think "who really is going to pay for this"?
and spare a thought for the poor next time
last 2 recesions have been very similar.
all about handing out tooo much credit.
you would have thought they would have learnt from the previous time.
hint dont have a bonus culture when it can affect peoples lives muppets
in the next financial "cycle" (pmsl) maybe the gamblers in the banks can stop and think "who really is going to pay for this"?
and spare a thought for the poor next time
last 2 recesions have been very similar.
all about handing out tooo much credit.
you would have thought they would have learnt from the previous time.
hint dont have a bonus culture when it can affect peoples lives muppets
Well peak oil hasn't happened, and what's this shale gas they've discovered?
America reckon they've got at least a hundred years supply of it, and we've got high hopes of doing the same. China also have a lot of it.
It's only the green do gooders who stand between us and another good run once we get it up and running.
They reckon it'll be bigger discovery than North Sea oil was for us if it comes good.
Europe are sunk straight away, it isn't green enough for them.
They'll have to change their tune pretty fast if they don't want to be left behind.
America reckon they've got at least a hundred years supply of it, and we've got high hopes of doing the same. China also have a lot of it.
It's only the green do gooders who stand between us and another good run once we get it up and running.
They reckon it'll be bigger discovery than North Sea oil was for us if it comes good.
Europe are sunk straight away, it isn't green enough for them.
They'll have to change their tune pretty fast if they don't want to be left behind.
Fixed rate bonds for me. No,it isn't a racehorse. 
who gives a fyk
get on with your own lives you sad cohooonts
get on with your own lives you sad cohooonts
The Establishment rule in this country have done so for over a 1,000 yrs and it will take something of seismic proportions to change it,they know all about humming nature the greed the need for greed the vanity and lack of humility in man,they have perfected a system that deals with it "the honours" and patronage at court,this sorts out those whippersnapper MPs from the country and oop north all the media hacks/barrons slaverring at the mouth at the very thought of getting a toe in they eat them up and s--t them out until the next lot appear,the easiest played are those "Labour" MPs they are the biggest fools of the lot,the French sorted that lot out in the 18th century when we should have followed suit but not for the first time the workers "bottled" it.Things cannot go on as they are more growth more consumption less resources only a fool ignores this,what price the"sunlight on the water the fresh smell of the meadow the call of the lark" troubled times ahead for sure and all the money in the world can,t stave it off.
The Establishment rule in this country have done so for over a 1,000 yrs
Absolutely BARNEY21, and they weren’t doing too bad a job until New Labour opened our borders to the world.
We'll get over the financial crisis and sort out the public sector waste, but some things are irreversible.
Absolutely BARNEY21, and they weren’t doing too bad a job until New Labour opened our borders to the world.
We'll get over the financial crisis and sort out the public sector waste, but some things are irreversible.
No Doc. Just plain old fixed rate bonds. Worked long and hard to get a few quid , so before the deluded on here begin to reply with their idiotic comments, I will just inform them that work is something that real people do to progress and contribute. The loons that think money and life comes free need not waste my time with their inane response. The education system obviously failed them. Or bypassed them completely!
homefortea
17 Dec 12 20:33
Like every other Labour invention it has come back to bite us in the ass...
What a t!t
17 Dec 12 20:33
Like every other Labour invention it has come back to bite us in the ass...
What a t!t
Small point, but some of the working class are grateful to Harold Wilson that they didn't end up in some crazy Asian war as Kenny Rogers put it. Some working class women are pleased that they no longer have to face the slaughterhouses of backstreet abortions. And some working class women are pleased that they no longer have to put with a brutal husband. And some working class gay men are pleased they are no longer classified as criminals.
As for Macmillan some members of the working class were grateful that they could have one of the 150,000 homes a year built during his premiership.
And some members of the working class were pleased that they could buy their own home which was introduced by Callaghan and championed by Mrs T. These members of the working class were pleased that the fruits of their labour could be passed on to their children.
As Leon Trotsky put it to the Irish TUC, it was not the working class women demanding bread for their children and the men back from the front that overthrew the tyrant regime, but the union of them and the middle class officers of the Tsar's army. Although maybe for some members of the ruling class Trotsky was too much of a right wing radical.
As for Macmillan some members of the working class were grateful that they could have one of the 150,000 homes a year built during his premiership.
And some members of the working class were pleased that they could buy their own home which was introduced by Callaghan and championed by Mrs T. These members of the working class were pleased that the fruits of their labour could be passed on to their children.
As Leon Trotsky put it to the Irish TUC, it was not the working class women demanding bread for their children and the men back from the front that overthrew the tyrant regime, but the union of them and the middle class officers of the Tsar's army. Although maybe for some members of the ruling class Trotsky was too much of a right wing radical.
there are very few real poor in the uk
real poverty?- go travelling and have a look at India /Africa/S.E.Asia and rural China - the poor work or die- so they work
they work for poor wages- but the numbers in employment increase
how can you hope to compete with economies with little social welfare costs?
if welfare costs are cut the long term benefits to the uk population as a whole will be very significant
in this context- the minimum wage is also a form of welfare payment - it should be abolished- it keeps people unemployed
you can only give to charity if you have the disposable income to do so- the UK State does not have the money to make these charitable welfare payments
cut them
slash them
and whilst we're at it - abolish the minimum wage
and as so many on here say
thank me later
real poverty?- go travelling and have a look at India /Africa/S.E.Asia and rural China - the poor work or die- so they work
they work for poor wages- but the numbers in employment increase
how can you hope to compete with economies with little social welfare costs?
if welfare costs are cut the long term benefits to the uk population as a whole will be very significant
in this context- the minimum wage is also a form of welfare payment - it should be abolished- it keeps people unemployed
you can only give to charity if you have the disposable income to do so- the UK State does not have the money to make these charitable welfare payments
cut them
slash them
and whilst we're at it - abolish the minimum wage
and as so many on here say
thank me later
well done EVILROYSLADE, I'm glad to see your looking after it .
The hard bit is to get on your feet in the first place.
The hard bit is to get on your feet in the first place.
Agreed Doc. It IS hard, and life can be a bitch. That is what motivates the triers. They get up and DO. Those that cannot, deserve help. Those that can but wont, deserve nothing at all. It is all so simple really. Have a good day on the nags Doc.
Have a good day Salmon, whetever you get up to.
Thank you Mr Slade.
I've looked you up on Imdb and I gather you are a comic villain. So you're alright with me.
I've looked you up on Imdb and I gather you are a comic villain. So you're alright with me.
Hahahaha. You should watch the film SS! John Astin of Addams Family fame!
the union of them and the middle class officers of the Tsar's army.
And so the middle classes took over and ruled the roost and the working classes had simply swopped one set of masters for another set of self serving masters - but this new regime were not going to loose control like the last lot did.
So they ruled with a rod of iron. It's called tyranny.
And so the middle classes took over and ruled the roost and the working classes had simply swopped one set of masters for another set of self serving masters - but this new regime were not going to loose control like the last lot did.
So they ruled with a rod of iron. It's called tyranny.
Yeh.
But in WWII they beat the Germans. Unlike under the Tsar 30 years earlier.
But in WWII they beat the Germans. Unlike under the Tsar 30 years earlier.
The Russians weren't being invaded in the first war, so they simply packed it in and had a revolution instead.
In the second world war they had to stand and fight because the Germans were all over them.
In the second world war they had to stand and fight because the Germans were all over them.
Yes and over in America during the same period they had freedom and unrestrained capitalism.
This saw a relentless rise in their standards of living and they prospered so much that it turned them into a superpower.
In America, households were watching colour television for decades before we got it in the UK.
While over in the USSR, all they could do was to envy America and tell the hungry Russian people that America was ‘’decadent.’’
Which was like telling a starving man that being skint all the time is turning him into a better person.
This saw a relentless rise in their standards of living and they prospered so much that it turned them into a superpower.
In America, households were watching colour television for decades before we got it in the UK.
While over in the USSR, all they could do was to envy America and tell the hungry Russian people that America was ‘’decadent.’’
Which was like telling a starving man that being skint all the time is turning him into a better person.
Dr C so the Wall Street crash never happened and there was no Great Depression in the land of the free?
Crippen is busy re-writing history just as he has re-written his own political views in the last few years.
ss he seems to be overlooking that FDR introduced state capitalism before Keynes, or should I say Kahn, invented it. And that the Giant Industralised Military Complex was a figment of imagination.
I wonder why whodarewins and salmon spray didn't emigrate to Russia when it was the USSR?
They'd sound like they'd have loved it.
They'd sound like they'd have loved it.
Never said anything to suggest that Crippen.
Do pay attention between counting your cash.
Do pay attention between counting your cash.
salmon I'm only assuming that you think like that, because earlier I had to correct you for doing the same when you appeared to read my mind.
You seem very aggressive.
By the way, the green in you eye is showing.
You seem very aggressive.
By the way, the green in you eye is showing.
America only appears to be a rich country on paper. Most of its citizens live very poorly. Half of the Countries wealth is now owned by only 400 people. It officially has the least social mobility of any country in the industrialised world. So much for the American dream
I think that our education system has a lot to answer to we lump a whole load of kids together to face up to an academic curriculum the biggest majority are not inclined to what is being expected of them,give kids the basics and for those who are showing a penchant for acadeamia then let them flourish and go forth in their chosen field,the others we should find out what they have a leaning to and encourage,all should be taught good househusbandry/social skills instead of trying to put a "square peg into a round hole" it might make for a better society.
Hardly Crippen. I own one residence and that is enough for me thank you.
And you know damn well I have not been aggressive for days. I have been respecting our truce. Even if it is an armed one
And you know damn well I have not been aggressive for days. I have been respecting our truce. Even if it is an armed one
Quite right Barney !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Too many at UNI - when many UNIs are just trumped up poor colleges
Tyoical 3 year UNI degree course
Year One: foundation vourse:very basic stuff/ general studies- one day per week- get 40% to pass after work re-marked twice to get you there- and then on to year two - where year performance one does not count one jot re degree marks.
Year Two :
One day's lectures per week
Year Out - to de-stress
Year Three- guess what- One day per week lectures........
The entire typical three year degree course can easily be done and dusted in a single year.
And what happens when fees are introduced?
Surprise surprise - very many non academics dont attend UNI and millions saved in wasted subsidies.
Students proclaim UNI education is their 'right'
Well wake up dearies- it isn't
If we can all afford you to be there - then fine; if we cannot afford to pay for you- go to work for a few years- save - and pay for yourselves.
RESULT !
Now - lets get to the same with Welfare...
Too many at UNI - when many UNIs are just trumped up poor colleges
Tyoical 3 year UNI degree course
Year One: foundation vourse:very basic stuff/ general studies- one day per week- get 40% to pass after work re-marked twice to get you there- and then on to year two - where year performance one does not count one jot re degree marks.
Year Two :
One day's lectures per week
Year Out - to de-stress
Year Three- guess what- One day per week lectures........
The entire typical three year degree course can easily be done and dusted in a single year.
And what happens when fees are introduced?
Surprise surprise - very many non academics dont attend UNI and millions saved in wasted subsidies.
Students proclaim UNI education is their 'right'
Well wake up dearies- it isn't
If we can all afford you to be there - then fine; if we cannot afford to pay for you- go to work for a few years- save - and pay for yourselves.
RESULT !
Now - lets get to the same with Welfare...
So still no figures?
Just chating on about trying to fix a broken system?
It's time for something completely new, though the idea may well be old.
Btw, to the guy asking about which of the political parties is the least bad, I think the answer is they are are all no good.
Time to rise above the childish ineffectual antics of party political squabbling.
Just chating on about trying to fix a broken system?
It's time for something completely new, though the idea may well be old.
Btw, to the guy asking about which of the political parties is the least bad, I think the answer is they are are all no good.
Time to rise above the childish ineffectual antics of party political squabbling.
The entire typical three year degree course can easily be done and dusted in a single year.
And what happens when fees are introduced?
Surprise surprise - very many non academics dont attend UNI and millions saved in wasted subsidies.
Students proclaim UNI education is their 'right'
Well wake up dearies- it isn't
If we can all afford you to be there - then fine; if we cannot afford to pay for you- go to work for a few years- save - and pay for yourselves.
RESULT !
Now - lets get to the same with Welfare...
it looks like those who got a Free university education through the 60s 70s 80s 90s used up all the money on their FREE university degrees.it now turns out we could not afford the cost of free uni degrees.
I suggest they now pay back the cost of their degrees.
about £27,000 i reckon, pay in instalments for those who cant afford it.
by instalments if they wish.
And what happens when fees are introduced?
Surprise surprise - very many non academics dont attend UNI and millions saved in wasted subsidies.
Students proclaim UNI education is their 'right'
Well wake up dearies- it isn't
If we can all afford you to be there - then fine; if we cannot afford to pay for you- go to work for a few years- save - and pay for yourselves.
RESULT !
Now - lets get to the same with Welfare...
it looks like those who got a Free university education through the 60s 70s 80s 90s used up all the money on their FREE university degrees.it now turns out we could not afford the cost of free uni degrees.
I suggest they now pay back the cost of their degrees.
about £27,000 i reckon, pay in instalments for those who cant afford it.
by instalments if they wish.
LS - 'The American Dream' The biggest spoof in the history of the planet!
Brainwashing a nation of idiots into believing they too can 'make it' if they work their balls off with two jobs for 60 hours a week at minimum wage for the next several decades, whilst the elite just sit on their fat arses calculating their interest rates or 'exercise' on the golf course!
Keep peddling the same horseshít for eons and you'll eventually have them guzzling up this outrageous, chocolate-flavoured semen!
PS - apparently, the 'believers' are dwindling in their numbers according to recent polls, as many are finally seeing the light...after doing what they've been told for the last 40 years of their lives
The biggest spoof in the history of the planet!Brainwashing a nation of idiots into believing they too can 'make it' if they work their balls off with two jobs for 60 hours a week at minimum wage for the next several decades, whilst the elite just sit on their fat arses calculating their interest rates or 'exercise' on the golf course!
Keep peddling the same horseshít for eons and you'll eventually have them guzzling up this outrageous, chocolate-flavoured semen!
PS - apparently, the 'believers' are dwindling in their numbers according to recent polls, as many are finally seeing the light...after doing what they've been told for the last 40 years of their lives
The country could afford a lot of things when we had nationalised industries that were at worst losing only a limited amount of money.
Even after they were nationalised things weren't too bad.
But now we're back to the same numbers of public sector workers we had in the nationalisation days, the difference being that these lot do not give us any return at all, it all goes down the drain.
We can't afford all those workers doing non-jobs and a bloated welfare state on top.
Even after they were nationalised things weren't too bad.
But now we're back to the same numbers of public sector workers we had in the nationalisation days, the difference being that these lot do not give us any return at all, it all goes down the drain.
We can't afford all those workers doing non-jobs and a bloated welfare state on top.
We can't afford a lot of people living off unearned income imo.
Speaking from Scotland,Salmond should nationalise all the utilities gas/electricity/transport/housing we own our water I think,he should then say to all businesses we will REDUCE your overheads thro the reduction on the charges for above utilities,you can REDUCE workers wages as we will REDUCE the cost of workers bills per above and we should tell the oil companies to fall in line as they have their part to play in taking their whack out,this would hopefully create a more healthy environment for all,instead of the continual hammering on businesses/peoples pockets,stop young girls having kids willy nilly exc the pun and hammer those who father kids without a thought,all able bodied should work on leaving school work on the land working in tandem with the supermarkets as we have zillions of it to spare it should be utilized for the benefit of all,give these youngsters hope and some belief in themselves and they will make their future brighter,instead of the blight that it is now for large swathes of the population.We have close to 1,000 islands of the coast of Scotland make prisons out of those that are suitable for the serious offenders let their families contribute to their upkeep,we would save money on costly prisons,there is no escape from these islands and they would be easily guarded.Utopian dream?? you never know.
Lets all sit back and do nothing eh? We should all pack in working, sign on, claim every benefit under the Sun and have no aspirations at all! After all, we were born , therefore we deserve to be kept!?!? Yes???? Lets all join the rest of the whingers in their smokey little rooms. I perhaps should have a dog called Sabre or Fang ( Staffie no doubt!) a houseful of meal tickets, eerr sorry , I mean kids! Three girls Kylie, Chantelle and Shaz, three moronic sons, Callum, Daz and Baz, and a wife or PARTNER sporting seven thousand tattoos on her arse and tits! A fridge full of tennants special brew and a cupboard full of Lidl Crisps for the offspring. Yes lets all follow the imbeciles who have posted on here spouting their look after the lazy feckers ****! Grow up,get real and get behimd the country you were born in, if indeed you were. You deserve NOTHING if you are able and DO NOTHING BY CHOICE!
salmon spray Joined: 10 Jan 07
Replies: 19575 18 Dec 12 17:23
We can't afford a lot of people living off unearned income imo.
Absolutely. As such, I'm surprised at your lack of enthusiasm for government's efforts to appropriately encourage suitable claimants away from unearned income such as incapacity benefit into paid employment.
Perhaps you were only referring to those forms of unearned income that may make up a far smaller proportion of your own income such as interest/dividends on investments and rental income?
Replies: 19575 18 Dec 12 17:23
We can't afford a lot of people living off unearned income imo.
Absolutely. As such, I'm surprised at your lack of enthusiasm for government's efforts to appropriately encourage suitable claimants away from unearned income such as incapacity benefit into paid employment.
Perhaps you were only referring to those forms of unearned income that may make up a far smaller proportion of your own income such as interest/dividends on investments and rental income?
Hello Sir!
We're STILL polar opposites on this one
We're STILL polar opposites on this one
Never mind, one day you will wake up! Do you disagree with the last statement I made? (You deserve NOTHING if you are ABLE and DO NOTHING BY CHOICE!)
I wouldn't say NOTHING, but definitely not be rewarded and better off than those working...perhaps the answer is to make the minimum wage a lot higher?
That could easily be subsidised if the wealthy turds put their paws in their pockets a bit, and virtually everyone would be better off!
That could easily be subsidised if the wealthy turds put their paws in their pockets a bit, and virtually everyone would be better off!
Then we have agreement. Its as easy as that. Forget all about our political leanings and generally, all on here, with a brain, basically agree. It is perhaps now time for Bfair to pull this thread and send Anaglogs to Siberia!!
For somebody I don't know jt45 seems to have a lot of lurve to give me.
If you're looking for Comrade Karla I think she's already taken.
C-Ks eloped with Reagan or Blackie.
I haven't seen either of them for a while.
I haven't seen either of them for a while.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539