What was it about leopards and spots.

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:

What was it about leopards and spots.
Topic Started: Dec 17 2014, 10:09 AM (114 Views)
disgruntled porker	Dec 17 2014, 10:09 AM Post #1
Older than most people think I am. Posts: 1,945 Group: Members Member #31 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	Some things never change. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/tories-poor-people-iain-duncan-smith-behavioural-change



RJD	Dec 17 2014, 12:50 PM Post #2
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Looks too me that if you do not have any arguments best attempt some character assassination. Standard technique of the left and the Gruaniad has evolved from a fine liberal Manchester Newspaper to a London lefty rag not fitting to be put on the nail in our outside Privy. On this issue if it is considered that the UK population is too large and if the current birth rate is greater than that necessary to replace those dying off then what is your argument for providing child benefits for more than two children? Love to know.



papasmurf	Dec 17 2014, 01:06 PM Post #3
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 17 2014, 12:50 PM Looks too me that if you do not have any arguments best attempt some character assassination. Iain Duncan Smith does not have a character to assassinate.



ACH1967	Dec 17 2014, 02:08 PM Post #4
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	If you strip out the emotive bollocks then the article seems fair and valid and there is plenty of content with the childish emotive stuff split out



RJD	Dec 17 2014, 03:33 PM Post #5
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 17 2014, 01:06 PM RJD Dec 17 2014, 12:50 PM Looks too me that if you do not have any arguments best attempt some character assassination. Iain Duncan Smith does not have a character to assassinate. Do you mean St. Duncan-Smith the saviour of the work-shy? I understand he has saved hundreds of thousands from a life on perpetual welfare just through a bit of financial encouragement and attempting to make a wage for work better than JSA. Surely you do not prefer that these people get themselves trapped into a system where working makes no economic sense? Or do you?



papasmurf	Dec 17 2014, 03:42 PM Post #6
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 17 2014, 03:33 PM I understand he has saved hundreds of thousands from a life on perpetual welfare just through a bit of financial encouragement and attempting to make a wage for work better than JSA. That is the heart of the matter, your understanding and Iain Duncan Smith "beliefs" bear little or no resemblance to the reality.



ACH1967	Dec 17 2014, 04:19 PM Post #7
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	RJD Dec 17 2014, 03:33 PM papasmurf Dec 17 2014, 01:06 PM RJD Dec 17 2014, 12:50 PM Looks too me that if you do not have any arguments best attempt some character assassination. Iain Duncan Smith does not have a character to assassinate. Do you mean St. Duncan-Smith the saviour of the work-shy? I understand he has saved hundreds of thousands from a life on perpetual welfare just through a bit of financial encouragement and attempting to make a wage for work better than JSA. Surely you do not prefer that these people get themselves trapped into a system where working makes no economic sense? Or do you? And there you have the crux of the matter. It will indeed, for some, be just the financial encouragement they need to get themselves a job. For others that is not the case and there suffering will have been increased. To deny both of these is to be dishonest. The crux is how many have benefitted, how many have suffered and how much greater or less is the benefit than the suffering. Until we know this saint or saviour has yet to be determined.



papasmurf	Dec 17 2014, 04:42 PM Post #8
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 17 2014, 04:19 PM It will indeed, for some, be just the financial encouragement they need to get themselves a job. No-one can "get a job" they have to be offered one by an employer, no cuts to benefits or benefits sanction can change that.



RJD	Dec 17 2014, 04:45 PM Post #9
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 17 2014, 04:19 PM RJD Dec 17 2014, 03:33 PM papasmurf Dec 17 2014, 01:06 PM RJD Dec 17 2014, 12:50 PM Looks too me that if you do not have any arguments best attempt some character assassination. Iain Duncan Smith does not have a character to assassinate. Do you mean St. Duncan-Smith the saviour of the work-shy? I understand he has saved hundreds of thousands from a life on perpetual welfare just through a bit of financial encouragement and attempting to make a wage for work better than JSA. Surely you do not prefer that these people get themselves trapped into a system where working makes no economic sense? Or do you? And there you have the crux of the matter. It will indeed, for some, be just the financial encouragement they need to get themselves a job. For others that is not the case and there suffering will have been increased. To deny both of these is to be dishonest. The crux is how many have benefitted, how many have suffered and how much greater or less is the benefit than the suffering. Until we know this saint or saviour has yet to be determined. Well St. Ducan-Smith claims there are more gainers than losers.



RJD	Dec 17 2014, 04:47 PM Post #10
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 17 2014, 04:42 PM ACH1967 Dec 17 2014, 04:19 PM It will indeed, for some, be just the financial encouragement they need to get themselves a job. No-one can "get a job" they have to be offered one by an employer, no cuts to benefits or benefits sanction can change that. Of course they do and they first have to apply for such which indicates potential willingness to enter into such a contract. Surely you don't think that the DWP should give out jobs as well?



papasmurf	Dec 17 2014, 05:05 PM Post #11
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 17 2014, 04:45 PM Well St. Ducan-Smith claims there are more gainers than losers. Claims his own departments data does not back up.



papasmurf	Dec 17 2014, 05:07 PM Post #12
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 17 2014, 04:47 PM Surely you don't think that the DWP should give out jobs as well? No, but it is still a fact that no amount of "stick" is going to get a claimant a job offer.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »