top trolling cereal.
many wont read your hilarious link.
(see a few fellow lefties have bitten)

Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents?
Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.

There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

We clearly live in a political era driven by a small-state ideology, but at the moment what we have is an awkward set up in which private sector relies on the state to continue to make profits, avoid bankruptcy and increasingly fund unethical practice which the government ostensibly claims it is tackling.

I'll take a couple of examples where I think your argument for supporting business doesn't really stand up. Private railways have been one of the biggest examples of the failure of the private sector to match the efficiency of the public sector. The East Coast Mainline was, until its privatisation earlier this year, the most cost effective rail line in the country, and also one of the last to be held in national ownership. Last year it brought in £23 million for the public. In contrast, private train companies not only charge the highest fares in Europe, they receive a state subsidy of around £4 billion per annum, while their shareholders have been receiving £200 million dividends. Even if you are adherent to someone like Hayek or Friedman, this is laughable, because these companies' inefficiencies are being sheltered by the taxpayer. These government subsidies aren't welcoming in job creators - in many cases the people working on the private rails are the same as who were previously doing so on the public ones - what they are doing is supporting the financial waste (the shareholders' dividends, for example) that the publically owned railways weren't.

What's basically happening is the taxpayer is taking on the financial failure of the companies while the company themselves are reaping in the profits, giving nothing back to the taxpayers using the service, who are paying more and more for it. Another example of this, and one you give yourself PP, is housing and infrastructure. If you think about it, £7 billion is enough for the state to build thousands of houses, so the question has to be why isn't the private sector doing so with such money? One of the biggest issues is material for house building has been monopolised, so the cost of bricks, cement, plaster etc has gone through the roof. Similarly, while property developers rush to London to build housing, nationwide targets of housebuilding are consistently missed, because private construction firms coming in to the country see no value in building outside of London. Pledges by these London housing firms, given billions by the taxpayer let's not forget, to build more affordable housing have consistently been waived, only around a quarter of houses in the capital being built are affordable.

Cameron says that the free market will not only lead our economic recovery, but improve morality, and he is quite clearly wrong. I've only given two examples of where it has lead to massive financial waste and unethical practices - don't get me started on healthcare - but it's endemic in almost all sectors from what I've seen. Adam Smith, so often lauded by free-marketeers, would be turning in his grave if he saw the role the state plays in financing the private sector. At least the budget today raised the minimum wage (very very slightly) so we won't be subsidising poverty pay so much, but these subsidies, coupled with the tax gains from companies in the article, highlight what a joke austerity really is.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

As far as I know Choudary does not claim disability allowance, although I wouldn't be surprised if he did as he clearly plays the system, as do many other people.

Do you think there is room for reforms to counteract benefits abuse as carried out by the likes of peace-loving Choudary?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

No, its better that he takes the piss than other people suffer as a result of 'punishing' him. The mark of a civilized society is that it treats its treats those who disagree with it in the same way as those who support it.

Countries that persecute people based on their beliefs and ideologies, are what we're arguably fighting against.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

meant under occupied