| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Forked tongue? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM (3,883 Views) | |
| RJD | Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM Post #1 |
Prudence and Thrift
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Well considered the claims made in the lefty Press, bloggers and here one would think he has not a snowball in Hell's chance of achieving that objective. We will see if he meets his milestone, but he is correct in one claim and that is no future Gov. is going to unpick this system and as a consequence he will be able to claim he inflicted the reform welcomed by the vast majority, the next step for a new Gov. must be to make further inroads against those barriers to making work always a first choice. |
 |
 
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Stan Still | Oct 12 2014, 12:00 PM Post #121 |
Regular Member
|
The bottom line is which you cannot seem to grasp is the present Government is at least trying to hold the spiralling cost of the welfare in check which is the total opposite of what Labour did when in office it went up faster than ever. You still do not get it well hello earth calling there are many in the UK who have had enough of the fit and healthy who have no intention of working and will not if the state ( us the taxpayers) keep giving them money to stay at home. The money we waste on the lazy would be better spent on helping those really in dire straights heath wise and unable to fend for themselves, and yes I know some in work also need benefits but at least they are trying hard to look after themselves and costing us less per head And the best solution you have ever come up with is tax the rich more and increase wages they will rise when the country can afford it, that worn out tried and failed miserably solution made matters worse, inflation went through the roof and jobs were lost, but you were ok back then as you boasted you were on good money. Well hello earth calling you were in the affluent south not the hard hit North, you are just another I am aright Jack pull the ladder up died in the wool dinosaur Labour man full of hate and envy. The rest of us kept on working to improve our lot despite your best effort to bring back the bad old days of strikes and huge wage claims that crippled the UK and made us the laughing stock of the world, time you realized that many people will never forgive or forget what the left did back then, try and work out why the Tories were in power for 18 years if you can. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 12 2014, 12:02 PM Post #122 |
|
Senior Member
|
It generally is and is stated as such by the Trussell Trust, you referenced the Trussell Trust defending themselves against a scurrilous attack by the Daily Mail. http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-figures-top-900000 LATEST FOODBANK FIGURES TOP 900,000: LIFE HAS GOT WORSE NOT BETTER FOR POOREST IN 2013/14, AND THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. •913,138 people received three days’ emergency food from Trussell Trust foodbanks in 2013-14 compared to 346,992 in 2012-13 •Figures are ‘tip of the iceberg’ of UK food poverty says Trussell Trust Chairman •83% of foodbanks report ‘sanctioning’ is causing rising numbers to turn to them •Foodbank figures trigger biggest ever faith leader intervention on UK food poverty in modern times. Over 900,000 adults and children have received three days’ emergency food and support from Trussell Trust foodbanks in the last 12 months, a shocking 163 percent rise on numbers helped in the previous financial year. Despite signs of economic recovery, the poorest have seen incomes squeezed even more than last year reports The Trussell Trust, the UK’s largest foodbank network. More people are being referred to Trussell Trust foodbanks than ever before. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 12 2014, 12:40 PM Post #123 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
As you retired early it is difficult to believe that your income from pensions alone attract income taxes. It could be that you are using the word pension in a very liberal manner to include earnings from your spouse. As for VAT etc These are consumption taxes, you know how to minimise these. The Welfare System was already in the process of reform before IDS became a Minister. No political party in gov is going to unpack these long over due reforms to satisfy a group whose only interest is to maximise State income. Mr Smurf your position on such reforms is intellectually and morally bankrupt. By all means complain about the DWP etc. But what do you expect? Private Sector standards of service perhaps. Be thankful you live in a rich liberal generous western democracy. |
|
|
|
| jaguar | Oct 12 2014, 12:44 PM Post #124 |
Regular Member
|
There are 365 days in a year, they only receive 3 days’ emergency food. What do they do for the other 362 days, starve? I would be more interested to know how many of the 900,000 were genuinely in need of food, and how many were there for a free handout. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 12 2014, 12:59 PM Post #125 |
|
Senior Member
|
I really despair that you even need to ask such a question the number of times it has been explained in depth and detail how food banks and food bank voucher issuers work. Yet AGAIN just for you:- http://www.trusselltrust.org/how-it-works Frontline care professionals identify people in need Care professionals such as doctors, health visitors, social workers, CAB and police identify people in crisis and issue them with a foodbank voucher. Foodbanks partner with a wide range of care professionals who are best placed to assess need and make sure that it is genuine. PLUS this:- http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/article/?id=12916 Food Poverty: Experts Say Foodbanks Are Inevitable in the UK 01 Oct 2014 Food insecurity and malnutrition in the UK is a much wider problem than has been recognised, according to experts from the University of Manchester. Food Poverty: Experts Say Foodbanks Are Inevitable in the UK Food insecurity and malnutrition in the UK is a much wider problem than has been recognised, according to experts from the University of Manchester. Dr Kingsley Purdam says the demand for foodbanks is underestimated with large numbers of people thought to be at risk of malnutrition in the UK. Many older people also face food insecurity. The rapid growth in the number of foodbanks and food donation points in supermarkets suggests a ‘normalisation’ of food aid. The research drew on survey evidence, case studies of foodbanks and interviews with foodbank users, and identified that: In one Northwest city, there are seven Trussell Trust foodbanks, and a further thirty other food aid providers in the area. Substantial numbers of people are constrained in their food choices and are skipping meals to prioritize their families. The Government spends an estimated £13 billion on disease-related malnutrition each year (BAPEN 2012). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has identified better nutrition as one of the key cost-saving initiatives for the NHS. Dr Purdam said: “In political and media debates foodbank users have been variously described as being: ‘opportunists’, ‘not able to cook or budget’ and ‘living like animals’. Yet evidence from the Citizens Advice Bureau suggests that the main reported reason for referring a person to a foodbank was a delay in benefit payments. “Moreover, the research suggests that people using foodbanks have a clear understanding of the costs of food and are limited in how they could change their financial circumstances. Many people were reluctant to use a foodbank because of the stigma and embarrassment. Grandparents and parents reported skipping meals so their children could eat, and also stated that they were not able to afford to have their children’s friends around for tea.” Extracts from the case studies: The foodbank users’ accounts demonstrate that they had concerns about the social stigma of asking for food aid: “It throws your pride out of the window...I am doing it for my kids, I am not going to make my kids suffer just because of my pride.” (Female, 34). “I was nervous coming here, I thought I had done something wrong…having to ask for food your ego takes a battering.” (Male, 40). A mother described how she had collected a food parcel on behalf of her grown-up daughter who was too embarrassed to come. She stated: “My daughter doesn't want to be seen as a scrounger.” (Female, 55). Many of the people visiting the case study foodbanks were vulnerable and in urgent need: “I was willing to turn to prostitution if I did not get help from the foodbank.” (Female, unknown age). “I need to make sure my kids have full bellies.” (Female, 40). “We say to my mum make sure you eat but she says she’s not hungry…she’s just making sure we eat first.” (Child visiting foodbank with her mother). Dr Purdam said there seems to be an inevitability to the scale of food insecurity given the economic recession and the present welfare reforms. He said: “Many of the foodbank users we spoke to seemed to be surviving from week to week even day to day. Some of the older people in need of food aid were not able to collect food parcels themselves and were having parcels delivered. Moreover, many people in need of food aid may not live near a foodbank. We also found that some of the foodbanks were running low on food supplies.” “Whilst local authorities have provided some funding, food aid is predominantly reliant on volunteers, food donations and the support of supermarkets and food manufacturers.” He said: “It can be questioned why the levels of food insecurity and malnutrition are so high in the UK and whether the government’s reliance on food aid is economically and politically efficient given the impact on people’s health and well-being”. “Food has an important role in defining our identities and in terms of family relationships. Yet this seems to have been neglected in the political debates surrounding food aid.” Notes for editors Dr Purdam is available for interview. The paper by K. Purdam, E. Garratt and A. Esmail entitled ‘Hungry? Food Insecurity, Social Stigma and Embarrassment in the UK’ is available upon request. The research is supported by the University of Manchester Institute for Collaborative Research on Ageing and Manchester City Council. For further information or to request an interview, please contact Kath Paddison, Media Relations Officer, The University of Manchester, 0161 275 0790 or kath.paddison@manchester.ac.uk |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Oct 12 2014, 01:07 PM Post #126 |
Once and future cynic
|
I'd look at the history of Trussell Trust assuming with no evidence that one parcel = one person. With their admission of up to 9 parcels per year we're much more likely to be talking 250,000 people than that 1 million figure Edited by Steve K, Oct 12 2014, 01:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 12 2014, 01:57 PM Post #127 |
|
Senior Member
|
One parcel may equal 3 days supply for one person or 3 days supply for a family. Your assumptions as to numbers are flawed. It is your mind set that bothers me, and how you manage to avoid seeing the problems, because no area no matter how rich is free of people who end up needing a food bank. |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 12 2014, 01:59 PM Post #128 |
|
Senior Member
|
I like my t's crossed and my I's dotted for we all have a tendancy to be selective in our posts either giving the worst case or best case sometimes referred to as overegging the pudding.Total facts are not always forthcoming, for it seems a bit low to include rent and all the other benefits she would be entitled to. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 12 2014, 02:05 PM Post #129 |
|
Senior Member
|
Its doesn't to me, but then I know how little benefits are, plus where she lives rents are a lot lower than many areas. Nationally before the cuts to local housing allowance came in that national average was £89 a week, ESA £105 a week and some child benefit and £200 a week is about right. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 12 2014, 02:19 PM Post #130 |
|
Senior Member
|
http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/foodbank/6323_Below_the_Breadline_web.pdf The UK is the seventh richest country in the world.It is also a deeply unequal country. In May 2014, theOffice for National Statistics (ONS) reported that therichest one percent of Britons own the same amount of wealth as 54 percent of the population.1 The same month, the Sunday Times reported that the 1,000richest people in the country had doubled their wealth in five years. Yet at the same time, millions of families across the UK are living below the breadline. Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty have calculated that 20,247,042 meals were given to people in food poverty in 2013/14 by the three main food aid providers. This is a 54 percent increase on 2012/13. Protecting its citizens from going hungry is one of the most fundamental duties of government. Most of us have grown up with the assumption that when we fall on hard times, the social security safety net will kick in and prevent us from falling into destitution and hunger. The principle of this crucial safety net now appears to be under threat. Food banks are a service of last resort for people living in poverty. As the authors of a report commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on food poverty stated: ‘There is no evidence to support the claim that increased food aid provision is driving demand. All available evidence, both in the UK and internationally, points in the opposite direction. Put simply, there is more need and informal food aid providers are trying to help.’ People on low incomes have traded down and down again to the cheapest food products; after which they simply have to buy less food. We have spoken to people living on one meal a day, drinking hot water and lemon to tame hunger pangs, trying to think how they can survive on a household budget of £6 a week. More than half a million children in the UK are now living in families who are unable to provide a minimally acceptable diet. Despite their best efforts, many people cannot earn enough to live on. UK food prices have increased by 43.5 per cent in the eight years to July 2013 and food expenditure as a proportion of total household expenditure has continued to rise. The UK has one of the highest levels of housing costs in Europe, while between 2010 and 2013 energy prices for households rose by 37 per cent. At the same time, low and stagnant wages, insecure and zero-hours contracts mean that for many low-income households, the money they are bringing home is less every month than their essential outgoings. Evidence shows that changes to the social security system are a driver of food poverty. Cuts to social security since April 2013 have had a severe impact on poor and vulnerable families across the UK. These cuts have been coupled with an increasingly strict and often misapplied sanctions regime – 58 percent of sanctions decisions are successfully challenged, suggesting that many people needlessly suffer a loss of income through no fault of their own. The abolition of the Social Fund has prevented thousands of households from being able to access crisis loans. The Trussell Trust, the largest food bank network in the UK, estimates that 49 percent of people referred to food banks are there due to problems with social security payments or because they have been refused a crisis loan. In the last year, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Hunger and Food Poverty has been set up with broad cross-party political support, and is conducting an Inquiry into the issue. The Work and Pensions Select Committee has considered the link between social security reforms and the increased use of food aid. These developments are welcome. However, far more needs to be done and with a greater sense of urgency. The government is failing more broadly to properly investigate or address the causes of the significant increase in food bank use. While we welcome the APPG Inquiry into the issue, this should not be used as an excuse for inaction at a wider level. All political parties must clearly commit to urgent action if we are to begin to tackle the growing problem of food poverty in the UK. Endnotes 1 Richest 1% Has Greater Share of Wealth Than Half the UK Population http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/news/richest-1- has-greater-share-wealth-half-uk-population 2 Webster (2014). ‘The DWP’s JSA/ESA Sanctions Statistics Release’, 19 February 2014, http://www.welfareconditionality. ac.uk/2014/03/the-great-sanctions-debate/ N.B. 58 percent refers to the average rate of successful appeals over the period 22 Oct 2012 to 30 Sept 2013. In the three months to 30 Sept 2013, the success rate was 87 percent. 3 Miscampbell (2014), Smarter Sanctions, London: Policy Exchange http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/ publications/smarter%20sanctions.pdf 4 http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/news/richest-1-hasgreater- share-wealth-half-uk-population 5 Field (2014), All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Hunger and Food Poverty in Britain Evidence Paper 1 – Expenditure, http://www.frankfield.com/upload/docs/Fact percent20Sheet percent201 percent20- percent20Expenditure.pdf 6 http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Oct 12 2014, 10:38 PM Post #131 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
I'm sorry PS but I just do not believe that 22 million meals esp when you read the Appendix and see the apology for rigour. I do accept that IF TRUE it would back one of your two millions. Both the BBC and Mirror reported Trussell trust as distributing ~900,000 parcels in 2013/4 and strangely Trussell trust have not exactly gone out of their way to rebut that. In fact the Trussel Trust itself admits it is true
http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/Press/TT-Foodbank-Information-Pack-2013-14.pdf So we are going to have to agree to disagree about that 2 million people figure you assert. You believe it is gospel and I believe it is rubbish You question my mind set, well it's simple: I believe figures quoted as facts should be verifiable and people who repeatedly use made up supposed stats have no place in a debate forum. |
|
|
|
| Rich | Oct 13 2014, 02:39 AM Post #132 |
|
Senior Member
|
Papa, your use of the word "may" is what troubles me regarding your post......are you sure and confident of your claims? |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 07:45 AM Post #133 |
|
Senior Member
|
What other word do you suggest. Food vouchers are issued for single people and they are issued to families, the number of people can be one or however many are in a family. So I don't see what your problem is. A year ago the Camborne food bank (Not Trussell Trust) issued food parcels for 19000 people on one Saturday. They did not process 19000 food vouchers. (That food bank like many others also delivers food parcels to disabled people and to people who cannot get to the food bank because of distance. I really don't know what is going to convince you there is a national disaster made worse by the current governments doctrinal attack on the already poor and disadvantaged. The Tories have poured petrol on a bad situation and caused a fire. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 13 2014, 08:09 AM Post #134 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Your problem is that you have yet to I'd such a doctrinal attack and substantiate this with facts. Your reference to food parcels is insufficient proof of a national calamity caused by Gov. With the rise in an integrated global market which has brought about much competition for jobs, particularly at the low skilled low value added end, exacerbated by NL's open door for all policy, I am amazed that such Food Banks have grown so slowly. Get yourself over to Germany, where unemployment is lower, and see how they have expanded that market for free food. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 08:20 AM Post #135 |
|
Senior Member
|
RJD I have substantiated it with facts many times, you just don't bother to read the references. Your problem is you have no intention of being informed. "Welfare reforms" account for around half of the cause of people needing food banks. I have posted that graphic many time. The 700000 people wait a year for a decision on an ESA claim has been a matter commented on at several Work and Pensions Committee meetings as had the 300000 people now waiting a year for a PIP claim decision. Both of those are causing severe hardship and distress. Then there is the bedroom tax which the government knew from its own impact assessment most people would not be able to get out of paying because there is nowhere smaller for them to move to. That effect 600000 people 400000 of whom are disabled. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 13 2014, 08:37 AM Post #136 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Again your claim is not to do with the necessary reforms as such, but process. You need to separate the issues out in your mind or you will remain confused. Same goes for the so called bedroom tax, you show no arguments that indicate such adjustments are immoral or wrong headed only that the process has exposed a running sore. There is not one political party in this land that will put it into it's manifesto that it intends to repeal any or all of these reforms and return to the NL system of welfare entrapment. You are pi55ing in the wind. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 08:45 AM Post #137 |
|
Senior Member
|
So what, RJD, when something is failing and killing people, a normal organisation would stop the process, and change it. The Tories have had over four and half years to do that and refuse to do so. Basically because they just do not care. Latest scandal involving Iain Duncan Smith, (If you can't see any problem with the man responsible for impoverishing millions getting into bed with door step loan sharks, you are beyond redeption.) http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/10/12/doorstep-lender-hosted-fair-priced-finance-champion-iain-duncan-smith-at-tory-dinner/ Political Party Funding Doorstep lender hosted fair-priced finance champion Iain Duncan Smith at Tory dinner October 12, 2014 by Melanie Newman Published in: All Stories, Political Party Funding The Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, dined with three executives of a doorstep lending company, CLC Finance at the Conservatives’ annual winter fundraiser in February. The group enjoyed a “wide-ranging political discussion” with Duncan Smith on matters including Universal Credit, a spokesman for CLC Finance said. Research by the Bureau also reveals that two of the directors who were sitting with Duncan Smith are members of a family firm that has given at least £28,500 to the Tories over the past three years. The first donation from this firm was recorded by the Electoral Commission in late 2011, just as pressure was mounting on the Government for tighter regulation in the high-cost credit market. Donations may have been made before then of insufficient size to trigger an Electoral Commission disclosure. Lender criticised for doorstepping retired couple The three CLC Finance directors at the table were Philip Wilbraham, CLC Finance’s majority shareholder, and Dominic Wilbraham and Edward Klempka. CLC Finance’s accountant and another member of the Wilbraham family were also guests at the table. Another guest was George Hollingbery, MP for Meon Valley in Hampshire, who is private secretary to Theresa May and has a particular interest in work and pensions and welfare reform. He is a longstanding personal friend of the Wilbraham’s family. CLC Finance, which also sells Christmas hampers and shopping vouchers, was criticised in the press in 2012 for doorstepping a retired couple who had built up loans of £65,000. The Mirror also noted that CLC’s collection agents were paid on a commission-only basis and earned extra if a new loan was taken out before the old one was paid off, which critics said could encourage them to pressure customers into borrowing more than they could afford. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 13 2014, 08:51 AM Post #138 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
For me debate needs to be logical in it,s progress and as a consequence I find your heated emotions most unhelpful. I cannot cope with your scatter-gun approach, I am far to tired. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 08:59 AM Post #139 |
|
Senior Member
|
I suggest you try some logical debate, and start reading references. |
|
|
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 13 2014, 10:00 AM Post #140 |
Older than most people think I am.
|
Stanley said:
And pray tell, after these 18 years of milk and honey, and popular policies, why the country kicked them into touch for almost as long? And by the biggest landslide in the universe. Was it because the country thought they had done such a good job? No, people eventiually began to realise what the tories were all about, and didn't like what they saw. You errupt with joy about Labour losing last time, but the vote given to the Tories was far from convincing. They had to rely on the Spineless Party to let them have a go. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 10:06 AM Post #141 |
|
Senior Member
|
My best effort? What are you on about? (Seriously.) I have never been on strike, and worked 60-80 hours a week for several decades and was mortgage free back in 1990. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 10:12 AM Post #142 |
|
Senior Member
|
He hasn't, he lied at the Tory party conference as I showed with references from the DWP. (You did not bother reading those either RJD.) The national rollout for Universal Credit is for SINGLE PEOPLE ONLY. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-announced-for-accelerated-rollout-of-universal-credit-after-success-in-north-west Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith has today (29 September 2014) announced that Universal Credit will be rolled out to all Jobcentres and local authorities across the country from early next year. This marks a significant acceleration in one of the government’s biggest reforms and is a sign of the success of the policy so far. This expansion will be for new claims from single jobseekers. |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 13 2014, 11:07 AM Post #143 |
|
Senior Member
|
The Conservatie party was rejected fo the same reason the labour party was rejected after their run of 13 years. Parties in government collect bagage along the way, due as much through events as any errors or mistakes, and Joe public just like a change, especially if they are offerd more unaffordable Jam tomorrow. Offer him reality, blood ,sweat and tears,and hard work and a tightning of the purse strings with lowere wages, to get that better tomorrow, and no political party is likely to win anything, even if it is the best option. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 11:16 AM Post #144 |
|
Senior Member
|
If we really were "all in this together" I would not mind, but "we" most definitely are not all in this together:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587707 13 October 2014 Last updated at 00:04 Sh Directors 'earn 120 times more than average employee' Directors of the top 100 listed UK companies now earn 120 times the average sum earned by their employees, according to a report by Incomes Data Services (IDS). Executive pay has escalated far faster than average pay. In 2000, bosses of top companies earned 47 times more. IDS said a director now typically earns £2.43m a year. Official figures put the average annual salary at £27,000. This year bosses' pay rose by more than a fifth, IDS said. IDS said the rise was driven by a 44% rise in share awards, which were given as long-term incentives. Bonuses were also up, by 12%, although basic salaries were £822,300, up by a far more muted 2.5%. That, though, is still some three times the size of average wage rises. The latest official figures show that, excluding bonuses, average earnings in the May to July period rose by 0.7% from a year earlier; including bonuses, they rose by 0.6%. Differential The IDS report shows that the long-term impact of years of high earnings growth has widened the pay differential between FTSE 100 chief executives and the rest of the workforce. It found that between 2000 and 2014 the median total earnings for FTSE 100 bosses rose by 278%, while the corresponding rise in total earnings for full-time employees was 48%. Steve Tatton, editor of the IDS report, said: "The pattern of pay growth highlights the complex make-up of directors' remuneration. "Salary rises may be modest but this can be more than made up for by the receipt of incentive payments. When such incentives pay out, they can pay out substantial sums, giving a significant boost to directors' earnings." The best paid chief executives were in media, marketing and telecoms, while the lowest were in retail and distribution. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 13 2014, 11:21 AM Post #145 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
First you would have to control yourself and keep on topic, but you seem to prefer the scatter-gun approach. Firstly show the basis by which such welfare reforms are immoral? |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 12:09 PM Post #146 |
|
Senior Member
|
Tories don't have any morals RJD so I don't understand the question. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Oct 13 2014, 05:29 PM Post #147 |
|
Senior Member
|
Just sat through a re-run of 'Upstairs Downstairs' having returned home to an empty dinner table (chauvinist that I am). It was a post WW! episode where the Lord was campaigning in the GE ....... and the words he spoke then were EXACTLY the words spoken now - eg, "I know you want better wages, but higher wages means fewer jobs". The boos were in respect of doing away with the class system - admitted to when the Lord spoke after, identifying himself as 'the ruling class', the hecklers as 'rabble'. Nothing much changes.. http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/uk-unemployment-18701999.html |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Oct 13 2014, 05:51 PM Post #148 |
Senior Member
|
Quite agree, they couldn't win outright so promised Clegg the booby prize of Deputy PM, in order to ensure his support at the cost of forcing his own once noble party to extinction come 2015. Edited by Lewis, Oct 13 2014, 05:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 13 2014, 06:02 PM Post #149 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I was asking you not a Tory. Just do it. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 06:35 PM Post #150 |
|
Senior Member
|
I still don't understand the question RJD, no-one has mentioned morals except you. |
|
|
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 14 2014, 08:15 AM Post #151 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
|
Morals? ReJinald wants benefits slashed to such a level that being on them is not an option. He would have the vast majority of deserving claimants screwed into the floor, just so that the odd few % of fraudelent claiments would not have enough to survive on, and therefore, in theory, seek employment. I wonder if it ever crossed his mind that this type of person would be more likely to top up his benefits with a spot of burglary, or mug a pensioner or two. The vast majority of deserving claimants are just collateral damage in ReJinalD's version of morality. He would have disabled people pushed around the streets in wheelbarrows by their children and grandchildren in the hope that some relatively well off person would deem them a fitting case for help and toss a few coins in their direction. At least that's the impresssion I get. Edited by disgruntled porker, Oct 14 2014, 08:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 14 2014, 08:21 AM Post #152 |
|
Senior Member
|
That is the impression I get as well, and not just about RJD. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 14 2014, 09:25 AM Post #153 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Unsubstantiated emotional bull-shit of the first order. This is a debating forum, best try and prove ecologically with substantiation and cut out the ignorant emotional crap. I can understand Mr Pig making such claims, but a man with such a self professed high IQ and excellent grammar school o education, well you should know better. You demean yourself by association. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Oct 14 2014, 09:26 AM Post #154 |
|
Senior Member
|
Just read your own contributions RJD. |
|
|
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 14 2014, 10:46 AM Post #155 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
|
Well I happend to have a very good Grammar school education too. I also have a honours degree. So put that in your pipe and smoke it you conceited old windbag. |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 14 2014, 11:10 AM Post #156 |
|
Senior Member
|
I do hope your view of politics is not influenced by fictiuous programmes AFFA The programme is fiction, the figment of an active mind, and is meant to entertain, not educate with selective truths, half truthes or even falshoods. Just shows how propaganda and the rewriting of history can deceive, especially when the bias suits our own agenda. |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 14 2014, 11:35 AM Post #157 |
|
Senior Member
|
Im a Tory party member Papa. raised a Christian with Christian values, and I think my morals are equal to your own, though my level of emotional involvement will never be the same as yours. To accuse people who are Tories of immorality is to take a very narrow view on life itself, and taking into acount the numbers who support them or are members of the party makes the suggestion that they lack morality, irrational. I just happen to think that individual good has to take second place to the common good, for without the one you cannot have the other. That does not mean that considertion , care and asistance should not be given to all those in need of it, but we know from experience that the level given will never meet the needs or expectations of all. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 14 2014, 11:36 AM Post #158 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I do and even someone with a very excited imagination cannot construe the images conjured up by Mr Pig and condoned by yourself. You have managed a new low in debate as far as I am concerned and allied yourself with the riff-raff where truth has no meaning. I notice that each time I challenge you to put forward a moral case against such welfare reforms you decline to engage. I now regard you as no better than the brown shirted bullies that roamed the streets in Germany in the 1930s and ultimately burned the books whose covers did not fit their perceived idiotic ideologies. You are not a reasoned debater Mr Smurf your just full of emotional bile which you do not even bother to find a dialectic and that is why you will never make any headway with your cause. You cannot articulate the fundamentals and seek to drag the debate down to pure untutored emotion and you should know that there is no light to be found in that dark alley. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 14 2014, 11:42 AM Post #159 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Well all that investment in education appears to have been wasted with you. You are a very nasty narrow minded person as far as I am concerned and I no longer see why I should be polite and tolerate your crude rude claims. I am not interested in your ignorant perceptions of me or anything only which claims you can substantiate. You may wish to wear your politics on your sleeve, but please do not expect any respect for doing so. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Oct 14 2014, 11:51 AM Post #160 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I do not understand why you think morality can be weighed in such a way, surely it warrants some absoluteness? My claim is that the welfare reforms have a basis in morality, that the cost implications here are not paramount and as such it matters not whether this view is mouthed by a card carrying Trott or a Tory. Mr Smurf has a obligation on a debating forum to rise to the challenge and present his arguments to show that such reforms are immoral as he claims. Unfortunately he prefers to alley himself with the emotional ignoramuses, avoid the debate and seek to sully the reputations of those that do not follow his dogma. Not an unusual but none the less nasty trick we see far too often from those that wish to avoid reasoned debate. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
12:37 AM Jul 14