So he has turned out to be a lying dratsab after all. Who'd have thunk it.He didn't lie (or it's unproven) - he maintains his denial. What he omitted was that police lawyers contacted his lawyers about it in 2008 - not full disclosure and therefore misleading
What's more concerning is the cultural change and sense of entitlement. For example in the case that @Sandpit gave earlier: 30 years ago virtually no one would have thought that acceptable behaviour - now people nod and shrugit's not just benefit fraud that angers people, it's generations of people getting welfare to pop out kids, contributing nothing to society and acting like arseholes. People who have worked hard and fallen on hard times get nothing, whilst scumbags never pay a penny and get everything paid for.The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low.
What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.
A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.
I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.
But not to vote for it (as we saw in ge17)What I took from that polling is that the first cut after the Brexit catastrophe should be to state pensions. They're ready and willing to suffer the privations.Required reading.The problem is that you Brexit extremists would be happy if others suffer economic hardship and / or lose their jobs as a price of Brexit . Most of you are retired and have no jobs to lose anyway . Will be a different story when they themselves suffer economic hardship .
My name is Brendan O’Neill and I am a Brexit extremist.. . .
Consider the mouths-agape response to new YouGov research published yesterday, showing that many Leave voters are willing to pay a high price for Brexit. Judging from the lingo being used – YouGov calls these people ‘extremists’ and much of the press has murmured in agreement – you’d be forgiven for thinking Leavers were plotting suicide attacks or a violent purge of parliament to get shot of Remainers and Soft Brexiteers. In truth, all they’ve said is that they’d be cool with going through some economic difficulty if it means their democratic cry for Britain to split from Brussels is realised.
Peel could compromise more. I'd say JRM is Liverpool or Castlereagh.Quite. And JRM is more Peel than Wellington. In fact every time I listen to him I think more of him.Cash and Redwood aren't Whigs, they are Radicals. The Whigs are people like Paddy Mayhew and Micky Ancram.I think they'd take umbrage at being called Roundheads. The Tory/Whig divide is closer.FPT:
There had long been a Cash-Rees-Mogg-Redwoodite faction to the Cons. No BBG speech, no commitment to the referendum, no overall majority.
Now, was that an error?
As an, ahem, spirited Remainer, I can't say that it was. It was politics. Analagous to the LDs getting into bed with the Cons. They were in power and politics is all about being in power.
Of course the subsequent Remain campaign was cackhanded, but, as with the recent GE, the "situation: no change" message is not a very persuasive one when the people are restless.
I'm being quite pedantic here, but I think Rees Mogg represents quite a different strand of the Tory right to Cash-Redwood.
Rees Mogg is an old fashioned High Tory whose beliefs bear a distinct resemblance to those of the pre-1832, or even 18th century Tory Party (at least in terms of attitude if not policy). That he is a Roman Catholic only strengthens the point - if you were to call him a crypto-Jacobite he probably wouldn't deny it.
Cash and Redwood are the ideological descendants of mid-19th century free trade, laissez faire Whigs/Liberals. I think Cash wrote a biography of Richard Cobden recently.
Or to put it simply: Rees-Mogg is a Cavalier, the other two are Roundheads.
A good man. He is the right wing equivalent of Corbyn. Only bright, godly and patriotic too.