Next round of the benefits/pensions saving by the DWP

Is it any wonder the Gov feels it can walk rough shod over expats, talking to a local group of expats some have been in France a considerable lenght of time i again brought up the subject of the WFA petition and the Connection article that only 15,000 had signed, also the question of health care being transfered to the uk, one guy who had been in France over 7 years asked what was the Connection another said oh here we go again more rumours it will never happen, it cant happen they wouldnt dare, this is the same guy who said the same when it was rumoured that BT were buying up the rights to various sports, boy did he kick up a fuss when he couldnt watch his football match as it was on BT. a French guy in the group asked what was happening, as it was explained he laughed and said you Brits deserve all you get you come over here and live in a little bubble as long as you have your football and beer the world can go to hell , i went to great lenghts to explain that every Brit wasnt to rich or to complacent to care

RV with the local 'Médiateur de la Republique' immediately! If that doesn't work then the 'Médiateur Europeen' and you may have (via your Insurances - car and Bank) an 'Assurance Juridique' - use it!

The thing is that it is ultimately not, to use your first word, funny at the end of the day that we end up with such people who are in it for themselves, their pals and the rest of us can go to...

Funny that - My son remembers, in a very similar light, a certain Cameron D. doing PPE at Oxford.

Clogg was an unpopular, smarmy student who stood out when I had the misfortune to teach his lot one year. When he became a politician I said to friends that there was somebody out for power and in it for himself. Now he is trying his utmost to build up the courage to tell his coalition partners what they are doing wrong but choosing who he goes for. May is vulnerable because she has made several mistakes that make her look foolish, but IDS he will not go for because he lacks the male anatomy to do so. No, you are not splitting hairs at all and Clegg is an opportunistic politician who deserves his comeuppance in bit under a year and half. I hope he loses his seat to boot.

I read that Mr Clegg has told Ms May that to cap immigration to the UK would conravene EU law surely then he must agree that to refuse payment of the winter fuel allowance to expat uk citizens would also contravene EU law or is that just splittig hairs and not the same thing or Clegg saying we can do what the bloody hell we like right or wrong

I hear that feelings are running high in Putney and North Battersea too. These are all seats that have been other than Conservative in the past.

David - Please keep in mind that Richmond is very much a Lib-Dem hot-spot & that Zak Goldsmith has a very slender majority there. The Heathrow issue tends to get people in the area very hot under the collar, and not just against it. Knowing the area quite well, I'd suggest that it is atypical and shouldn't be taken as representative, even of Outer London.

Definitely!

I was many years ago contemplating a political career (actually approved by Tory Central Office) and certainly complied with most of your criteria but decided to jump ship to avoid over exposure. However to my knowledge many of my contemporaries that continued did indeed fulfill your criteria and in some cases added a few even less savory ones. Arrogance could be usefully added I think.

This is quite interesting about the potential effect of volte face on the Tory vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25375563

Even comfortable areas around London now seem to be in disquiet. Of course a difference is that they actually do have a vote!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica

(first link didn't work for me for some reason)

He's one of my wife's heros!

99.9% sure you're right David. I think it was one for the estate, one for the army - one for the Church if the family owned a living, and one for politics if they were sure of a safe seat!

The "failed" sons probably had more fun as they tended to be gamblers, womanisers, wastrels and generally of low morals. Mind you that could describe a lot of politicians!

Not the failed sons but in order of seniority, but I forget the exact order. I seem to recollect that the priests were the fourth, but then the meek shall inherit the earth! Mind you there were quite a few examples such as the Bristols where the churchmen did end up with everything but that ended up in a disaster. In fact that system usually works rather better than the Napoleonic one in terms of safeguarding the family estates! Politicians generally are pretty much as mixed a bag as in life generally, but we seem to have an exceptionally poor lot at the moment and the arrival of the manipulating class has not helped.

OK, before I am shot at dawn, yes this is from the Grauniad but the Daily Wail has also highly praised the man this tsory is about: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica

Have a read and think about our lot in Europe!

Was it not the Church the Army or Politics for the failed sons of the aristocracy

Absolutely.

Bang on Brian. Let's face it - who in their right mind would go into politics?! :) Of course, there's nothing wrong with using logic to decide what's right and what's wrong - but it all dépends on the logic. "Logically" the decision process should be almost infinitesimal, as a decent person decides to do the decent thing without even realising they've thought about it.

I wonder where some of the present government's personalities would come out using the principles of Lawrence Kohlberg's 'The Philosophy of Moral Development'? According to him moral reasoning can be defined as the process in which an individual tries to decide what the difference between what is right and wrong by using logic. This is an important everyday process that people use in their attempts to do the 'right thing'. It arises whenever people are faced with the choice of whether or not to lie in a given situation. People usually make those decisions by reasoning the morality of their action and balancing that against the outcome. IDS may have unconsciously applied that principle when he claimed benefits, fiddled expenses, invented his education and effectively stole what he claimed for his wife as wages. He not only defrauded the state but also took the risk of being prosecuted for perjury, kicked out of parliament and so on. Given none of that happened, he is now indifferent about such consequences and could be just about squeezed into psychopathy. However, a growing number of his colleagues in control of the economy, education, health and given his U-turns, half and untruths and fits of rage in the commons the PM too might have iffy moral reasoning and psychopathic tendencies.

LibDems and Labour show the same traits so no safe haven there and lest we forget UKIP, BNP, EDL and other 'alternatives', well they are all barking mad anyway.

Just to ruin the brevity of our previous replies - Wonder what IBS would've done when he had to claim benefits if he was treated the way he advocates treating people today. Unless of course he knew at the time that he was playing the system for what he could get and therefore assumes everyone else is doing the same thing.

Hope this link works. Otherwise look up (if you can be bothered!) definition of a psychopath psychology today

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0