I am not entitled to Contributory ESA if my husband earns over £7.5k pa. That rules out 99.99% of people whose spouses do actually work, of claiming contributory ESA. (Contributory means I have enough NI/Income Tax contributions to qualify for the benefit in the first place but it is chalked off by the £7.5k pa household income rule)



How is that fair??????

Because I value spending my last months with my family over going to work and earning money for some rich, overpaid CEO who probably couldn't give a to$$ if I had cancer or not and would be replacing me a week after I died. Thats why.

You failed – repeatedly – to comprehend that it was not my idea, even though I had made it patently clear who had mentioned it, and that it was not suggested (by that original person or, later, by myself) as anything more than an example.



Then you twisted another comment – and have persisted in pretending that what you claim was said was said, when it never was.



You're either very stupid, a troll with nothing positive to add to any discussion or a combination of the two.

It will be fascinating to see how the French economy performs under Hollande in the next two years. It should provide a better comparison of the success or failure of the coalition's economic policies relative to a Labour style government.

That may be so but there is another reason why the benefit was universal. It is to do with, ironically enough, being "all in it together". If you pay into the welfare state via taxes and NI and you also benefit from it (in this case via child benefit) then you have a stake in the system. If it is all one way traffic in that some people only ever pay in and are never eligible for any form of pay out, then sooner or later the system breaks down as those people begrudge paying anything in at all and start to support parties from the right to who promise them just that. We are well down that road and it is quite deliberate policy from the right which is very divisive.

Why? You are assuming a UK Labour government would be a clone of the Hollande administration which it would not be and furthermore there are so many differences between France and the UK economically already you would not be comparing like with like.



It's far simpler IMO. Which is the better approach? The more pro-growth style of Obama or Austerity? It seems so far the yanks are winning that particular debate.

No one will win that debate until they reach equilibrium, a state of steady growth with the budget deficit under control. Both the UK and the US are a very long way off that. Obama may be in the lead now but he's nowhere near the winning post.



The French economy isnt the same as the UK's but it is more similar to the UK than is the US. And Hollande's policies are much closer to Labour than are Obama's. But even allowing for the differences, if the French economy significantly outperforms the UK's in the next 2 years, Labour will inevitably cite that at the next election as a vindication of their views on how the economy should have been managed. And ditto for the Tories if the French economy does worse. The state of the French economy will be a big deal at the next election.

Has anyone else stumbled across this cheery little number?



[url=http://www.moneyweek.com/endofbritainMoneyweek - The End of Britain[/url



It's a long piece, very alarmist in nature, and clearly the main aim is to flog copies of their 'Wealth Preservation Report'.



But leaving that aside, I'm wondering what people's views are of the [url=http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/uk/the-end-of-britain-sourcesfacts and figures[/url within the article, and the outlook for our glorious nation? Moneyweek tend to be pretty good and the key facts seem valid enough. The Welfare State is not only a massive burden, but has morphed into a monster and in its present form appears to be completely unsustainable without radical changes to not only our economy but the expectations of our society.



Of course, assuming the article's projections are correct, it also ignores any intervention measures or other action that may help ease the damage. Presumably some of these are touched upon on an individual and national level in their much-vaunted 'Report'.



To save a little time, skip the exhausting promotional crap and start from the section entitled, "The downward slide has begun".



I'm no economic expert and would be interested in the views of my more learned peers on these fine boards.

Very good post.



The divide-and-rule stuff is really quite heartbreaking – at least in terms of how effective it is being at present. You only need to look at the survey that was released last week that showed the difference between what many people [ibelieve[/i is the situation on benefits being paid and the reality to see how effective it has been.



But then again, the right has the likes of Murdoch and the [iMail[/i group behind it. And a generally dumbed-down public discourse doesn't help.

My son and his family get them, no Nissan, no iPads just a struggle to make it last.

No he doesn't.



Thatcher presided over a period of burgeoning meritocracy. That's the last thing the Old Etonian brigade want. Even she went the beginning of our meritocracy have been swept away - mainly, it has to be said, as a result of Labour's crass ideology.