| 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: |
| Another hung parliament. Four scenarios could follow. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 23 2015, 11:21 PM (968 Views) | |
| scorpio | Jan 23 2015, 11:21 PM Post #1 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Another hung parliament? Four scenarios that could follow IMO it's too early to make any reasonable predictions, on which party or parties will win the GE. Especially, considering that there doesn't appear to be any clear winner, emerging from the mix that is the contest for government. However, it seems that another hung parliament, and the forming of another coalition government, is more likely than a majority government. Repeated coalitions within the FPTP structure, is an indication that FPTP is crumbling and electoral reform would bring more universally accepted, more democracy, and stable government. Four scenarios that could occur. See link. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30902524 |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 24 2015, 07:15 AM Post #2 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i think anyone who feels clegg will have a part to play is living in cloud cuckoo land. I look forward to seeing his candidate in newport east, who in 2010 came to within 1000 votes of evicting Blair's Transport House apaarat-chick, lose his deposit. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 24 2015, 08:26 AM Post #3 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Even Milliband is vulnerable as UKIP are after his seat. At the moment one of the Bookies has the Conservatives as favourite with a narrow majority, based I think on the assumption that UKIP's bubble has burst. Personally I think a default Labour + SNP most likely, God help us. I cannot see how one can deduce that because no Party has an overall majority this is proof that FPTP has failed. It only shows that the Voters preferences and there is nothing in our form of constitution or on the tablets handed down to Moses to say that there must be a system which provides such a majority. As for the other systems they tend to produce coalitions as the norm, check on Germany and Italy. Seems in Italy their system produces failed Gov. as the norm. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 24 2015, 09:45 AM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A worrying and unpleasant factor involved in that apparently:- http://theconversation.com/british-voters-open-to-a-jewish-prime-minister-but-some-are-more-welcoming-than-others-36611 The horrific murder of four Jewish men in a Paris supermarket ago has understandably provoked a debate about levels of anti-Semitism throughout Europe, including, of course, the UK. According to some campaigning organisations things aren’t good and may be getting worse. But what, if any, are the electoral implications? As part of my research on the Labour Party, I commissioned the polling company YouGov to find out how British voters would feel about a Jewish politician leading a political party and making it into Number 10. There were, however, some differences between the supporters of the four parties under consideration. Some 13% of UKIP voters said they would be less likely to vote for a party with a Jewish leader. Only 7% of Conservative voters said the same. For the Liberal Democrat voters, the figure stood at 6% and for Labour 4%. And UKIP voters were less likely to see a Jewish prime minister as “equally acceptable” as a prime minister from another faith. Only 48% of those intending to vote UKIP agreed when asked, which compared with 62% of voters in general. The highest level of agreement came from Lib Dem and Labour supporters, at 73% and 72%. Conservative supporters were not far behind at 65%. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 24 2015, 09:49 AM Post #5 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not sure what planet you're on PS we already have a zionist in number ten by his own admission http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10692757/David-Cameron-speaks-of-Jewish-ancestors-including-great-great-grandfather-and-Yiddish-novelist.html http://www.jpost.com/International/Cameron-declares-himself-a-Zionist |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 24 2015, 10:14 AM Post #6 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is no need for personal attacks, I was merely referencing some interesting research. |
![]() |
|
| somersetli | Jan 24 2015, 11:07 AM Post #7 |
|
somersetli
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The shadow of a Lab/SNP coalition is too dreadful to contemplate for me. The current Labour party is not fit to run this country at this time, and I say this as a lifelong Labour supporter prior to 2005. As for the SNP, this is a party dedicated to an independent Scotland representing people who do not want an independent Scotland, according to the last referendum. How that combination works is beyond me. Coupling them with the present Labour party would be an absolute disaster for this country IMO. In any case, to change the government in the present stage of the world economy would not be a good idea. Suddenly applying the brakes and going off in a completely different direction at this time, would not be in this country's best interest. Better the devil you know..............even if he does have horns. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 24 2015, 11:45 AM Post #8 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would not be so bold as to completely write off the Liberal Democrats, because although they will indeed suffer a huge loss in seats, they could easily have around 23 seats , and that prediction is based upon current polling averages ( Lib Dem averaging 8 points ). I believe it is still a possibility to have a Lab-LD coalition, which I would personally prefer as against a Lab-SNP coalition, but with over 3 months to go, anything could happen. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 24 2015, 11:54 AM Post #9 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Neither would I in the constituency where I live. New Labour voters are as rare has rocking horse poo and the MP, a LibDem, has voted against the majority of the welfare reforms that have caused a large number of people in the constituency very serious problems. (The large numbers referred to food banks is quite frankly a disgrace, and David Cameron should be ashamed of himself.) There is also a local charity providing hot meals for school children during school holidays. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 24 2015, 12:28 PM Post #10 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I still don't understand what you're getting at though. Cameron's jewish heritage is undeniable even if he tries to suggest he only recently found out about it and he is on record as declaring himself a zionist - although I suspect he will vehemently deny this makes him a fan of those who blew up the King David Hotel Milliband on the other hand has taken to being photographed eating bacon sarnies in public. If this research exposes an undercurrent of antisemitism in the UKIP vote then I think it is cameron who has more to fear, given Milliband's actions. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 24 2015, 12:39 PM Post #11 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, there are two lib dems in seats "in your area" I think it would breach rules on identification to go much further in that direction, what I would say is that wiki's records on electoral turnout (which come with citeable references) seem to show that both have battled the tories and both took a bit of a pasting in 2010. I agree that what an MP does or is believed to stand for can occasionally count even in these days, look what happenned to Labour with Peter Law I suspect the towns in your area will - like mine - see more assholes in rosettes on the streets in the next few weeks than they have seen for years |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 24 2015, 12:40 PM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am merely referencing some research. It does appears anti Semitism is a factor in how a percentage of people vote. With the general election too close to call and a few percent going to make a big difference in a largish number of constituencies. It is a something I suspect the usual polling organisations are not factoring in. Like I suspect they are not factoring this into their polls either:- Some interesting marginal seat info, in the reference article, that I can't copy paste. Just a snippet from the text:- http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2555-could-claimants-choose-the-next-govenment We have no idea how many working age claimants vote, particularly those who are sick and disabled, because nobody cares enough to find out. But it seems likely that turnout at the last election was relatively low amongst sick and disabled voters simply because many saw themselves as having very little to choose between the three major parties. At the 2015 general election the picture may be dramatically different, however. Many claimants will always despise Labour for their anti-claimant rhetoric, for creating the work capability assessment and for introducing private sector companies like Unum and Atos into the benefits system. But following 5 years of coalition savagery, hatred and impoverishment, and with chancellor George Osborne undertaking to cut a further £12 billion mainly from working age benefits, many may also believe that another five years of coalition or Tory rule will represent a virtual – or actual – death sentence for them. Under those circumstances, if despair does not disenfranchise them entirely, claimants may turn out to vote Labour in unprecedented numbers, holding their noses whilst they do so. If claimants and representative bodies work conspicuously and effectively to get the claimant vote out in marginal seats, the 2015 election could mark a turning point in the way that politicians regard them. Jeers and mockery may turn to the same grudging fear with which pensioners are regarded by many politicians. And after the next election, fear of newly assertive claimants might even be sufficient to force whichever party is in power to pass legislation giving disabled people the same protection against prejudice and hatred that members of ethnic minorities have. With the press and politicians finally forced to end the rabble rousing and hate campaigns, the world could look a very different place. |
![]() |
|
| Alberich | Jan 24 2015, 01:16 PM Post #13 |
|
Alberich
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I see that Cleggie, the madam Fifi of politics, is already trailing his skirt at Labour. He has magnanimously declared that he can see the Liberals supporting either the conservatives, or Labour; depending on the results. Nice of him!! But hopefully, for once, the polls are right, and his sad little party will be destroyed at the polling stations. So I don't really see the Liberals as anything other than a minor party, able to make up the numbers if a multiple coalition is necessary, but having little significance or effect. More worrying is the probable outcome north of the border. If the Nats destroy Labours vote there, then the party sworn to destroy the union could find themselves holding the balance of power in the government they espouse to detest. And as they have no honour, they will insist on exercising that power, and will probably back labour...at a price! As for UKIP; they will attract votes in some quarters, but these will not translate into meaningful seats. Their influence will probably be to ensure that Cameron cannot command an overall majority, and that will let Milliband in, backed by the Scots Nats. And then God help us all. How long will it be, I wonder, before the English wake up and realise that this situation simply cannot continue. We have given more fiscal powers to the Scottish parliament since the referendum, and they are now over 90% self governing....but still propped up by the Barnett formula and the English taxpayer! Yet they still send the same number of Labour clones to Westminster, and these still have full voting rights on all parliamentary business. This is unfair, unjustifiable, and surely cannot be allowed to continue. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 24 2015, 01:21 PM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well all I can say where are Guy Fawkes and Oliver Cromwell when you need them. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 24 2015, 02:22 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"We have no idea how many working age claimants vote, particularly those who are sick and disabled, because nobody cares enough to find out. But it seems likely that turnout at the last election was relatively low amongst sick and disabled voters simply because many saw themselves as having very little to choose between the three major parties." The above dilemma exists for all of the electorate. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 24 2015, 02:27 PM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Cameron must come down from his high horse and speak behind closed doors to Farage if he truly wants the conservatives to reign supreme as opposed to him personally being the head honcho, I will say this though, it does not matter what party wins at the next GE, in order to get this country back into the black, RIGHT WING policies will HAVE to be adopted, socialist and do gooding policies in a short 5 year term will just not cut the mustard. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 24 2015, 03:08 PM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But most of the electorate is not facing an early death if the Tories get back in with a working majority, the poor and disabled are. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 24 2015, 04:49 PM Post #18 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I really don't care if the PM is a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian or an Atheist as long as they leave their beliefs behind when the go to the office. I also don't care what colour their skin is, but have a personal preference for a female of mixed stock a touch of Anglo-Indian plus Chigro can be very pleasing on the eye. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 24 2015, 04:54 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It appears enough people to have an impact on the result of the election do care though. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 24 2015, 04:57 PM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So much for substance in politics, you seem to be judging by looks now! Are you going to be watching Strictly Come X Factor tonight? Big tits always gets my vote!
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 24 2015, 05:15 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I blame Gengis Khan:-
|
![]() |
|
| HIGHWAY | Jan 24 2015, 05:20 PM Post #22 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I thought you said a good % would be dead before the election!!they better hurry up |
![]() |
|
| Nonsense | Jan 24 2015, 07:02 PM Post #23 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quote:" Personally I think a default Labour + SNP most likely, God help us". The first part I can agree with, the second is a non-starter period. I personally think that the Tories are screwed, the reason being, that no government in peacetime has ever won an election through falling living standards to the extent of this government. You may well argue that the situation that they inherited was not their doing, that is NOT so, for the FACT is, like Milliband today, the Tories in opposition, NEVER,EVER opposed New Labour pumping £ BILLIONS into 'PRIVATE' businesses during NL's time in government, after all is said & done 'opposition' is the opportunity to place it's values & policies before the public as an 'alternative' to the incumbents. The above is the hypocritical face of Toryism, take the state hand-outs for their friends in business whilst in opposition, then cut benefits for the rest when in power. I think that the young people of today, have learnt a very valuable, lifelong lesson from this government, that they will judge them by, they do NOT care what awaits them with Milliband & co. The country's working people are being screwed both ways, 'democracy' was ALWAYS a 'SHAM' in this country, once a party is elected, the following day, 'democracy' is 'forgotten' for the duration of the parliament. Milliband is no different than CAMERON or CLEGG, ALL are hypocrite's, the fact is, Milliband has had 5 years to 'oppose' CAMERON, based upon his party's 'values', the FACT is, he hasn't 'opposed' him, therefore he accepts CAMERON's actions. I think that CAMERON will try to survive with the Irish Protestants, it won't work, for even there\here, they are out-numbered by all the others. The Tories have always portrayed themselves as 'nationalist' or the party of the 'family', which is a nonsense, they think ONLY of 'money' that must flow in their direction away from where it is needed, as a result, I think that they are the new 'Lib-Dems', outsiders of the future. The 'lesson' for ALL politicians is, "RAISE UP THE POOR FROM THE 'FLOOR', AT THE SAME TIME AS CUTTING PUBLIC SPENDING ELSEWHERE-NOT- CUTTING TAXES FOR THE RICH\BETTER-OFF" IT'S 'UNFAIR', IT'S 'WRONG' & WE WILL BE FOREVER STUCK WITH A 'WELFARE STATE' UNTIL YOU FORGET THE RICH & MIDDLE-CLASS,GET YOUR 'PRIORITIES' RIGHT". This is why MILLIBAND is a screwball, he thinks ONLY of the 'middle-class', the 'working-class do not exist for him or his party & the unions are brain dead. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 24 2015, 07:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 24 2015, 07:17 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I did, and they are. Very large numbers missing from the datasets of with no-one able to explain it. http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/sanction120115-2.pdf |
![]() |
|
| Nonsense | Jan 24 2015, 07:31 PM Post #25 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quote: "Repeated coalitions within the FPTP structure, is an indication that FPTP is crumbling and electoral reform would bring more universally accepted, more democracy, and stable government". That's a false analogy in my opinion, it's not that FPTP is 'crumbling', it's not, it's 'democracy' that's crumbling from a lack of real choice's. The three main parties all fight over the 'middle-ground', which is wrong, as there is nothing between them from the electorate's point of view. When people shop, they want to 'shop' in 'different' shops, not the same shops with different name labels with the same goods on sale, it's where, in the political sense, the saying of, " you can take a horse to the water, but, you cannot make it drink " arises. We still(unfortunately) live in a 'class' system, parties want votes in a competitive voting system, so they all appeal to the same group, completely ignoring the rest, in particular the poorer 'working class'. No amount of appealing to the 'working class' from MILLIBAND will enable a straight win at the polls for him or the TORIES, as they favour the middle\upper classes. We already know that MILLIBAND & his cohorts are 'relaxed' about the 'filthy rich' making it, whilst the poor get poorer, so, therefore, his policies are a 'CON' to be ignored. They say that we get the 'government that we deserve', that is true, DO NOT VOTE, it's irrelevant who gets in to the poor. What is required, is 'parties' that stand for each particular class, when that happens, the 'working class' will win every time, on OUR terms. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 24 2015, 07:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 24 2015, 07:33 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well Papa, I certainly would not back my wages on this as there are disclaimers within the report. #Our study evaluated the impact of the rise in sanctioning that occurred following reforms to JSA conditionality and sanction regime from 2011. It has three main findings. First, the increasing application of adverse sanctions has corresponded to a substantial increase in persons exiting JSA. This relationship existed before the reforms, but the strength of association tripled under the new regime. Second, the majority of persons who lost JSA in association with an adverse sanction did not flow into employment but to destinations unrelated to work. Third, we failed to find an effect of the increasing application of adverse sanctioning and either rising employment or falling unemployment rates within local authorities. As with all observational and aggregate analyses, our study has several limitations. First, our study was at the level of local authority, creating potential for ecological fallacies. It was not possible to access data at the individual level on sanction referrals or employment and welfare outcomes, since such data are not tracked by Jobcentre Plus offices. However, the advantage of the cross-area analysis is that it accounts for the economic context in which sanctioning is applied, avoiding individualistic fallacies (23), of particular importance in a period of job scarcity. Second, sanctioning rates could include multiple rounds of the same individual being sanctioned. Since our study was based on the monthly period, however, the numbers involved in any given month are likely to represent different individuals. For persons who receive repeat sanctions, the period of benefit withdrawal is, at minimum, one month, so it is unlikely that our results are driven by repeat offenders. We also had specificity in our findings, in that non-adverse and cancelled sanction decisions were not associated with exit from JSA, while there was a significant association with adverse sanction decisions. Third, it is possible that our observation of a null finding between sanctioning and employment and unemployment rates in local authorities is due to the sampling error resulting from the estimates being based on small samples for each area in the Annual Population Survey or because the analysis was limited to quarter-on-quarter changes in rates for 12 month periods. However, we found statistically significant and qualitatively similar findings with regard to the association of sanctions and claimant counts calculated on this basis. Fourth, although the data on reasons for off-flow is subject to a constant rate of non-reporting, it is possible that persons who went to unknown destinations were actually in employment. This seems unlikely, however, given the market incentive for Jobcentre Plus offices to track claimants moving off JSA into work. There is a clear need to develop better monitoring systems for tracking what happens to persons who exit unemployment benefits, especially in light of the evidence of the growing disconnection between need and state support (5). A recent report by the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee suggested that off-flow attributed to employment be instituted as a performance measure, rather than total-off flow counts (24). Fifth, we did not disentangle the intensity of sanctioning, ranging from a minimum of four weeks termination under a low-level sanction to up to a three year withdrawal under a high-level and repeat offence sanction. This longer lag could potentially dilute the associations we observed. Future studies are needed to investigate the differential consequences of sanctioning intensity in the UK. A final limitation is that, as with other studies, we did not evaluate a wider range of social costs of sanctioning, such as homelessness, hunger, depression, and suicide risk. There is a need for full costbenefit analyses of sanctioning, including Health Impact Assessments and evaluation of the potential hidden and spill-over costs to other areas of welfare support. Taken together, our findings support claims that punitive use of sanctions is driving people away from social support. We were unable to assess reasons why this is so. However, studies have shown that individuals who are sanctioned and end up disconnected from work and welfare have lower human capital and other disadvantages that suggest they would face barriers to complying with the extensive conditions for receiving unemployment benefits (5, 15). As highlighted, the conditions for receiving unemployment benefit have become increasingly demanding in the UK. The frequent interview requirements and required hours of job search activity likely make it difficult for those with restricted access to transportation, a computer, and a mobile phone, and those with young children to meet requirements. Similarly, the rise in individuals receiving sanctions for failure to participate in the Work Programme has raised concern that current processes for evaluating the needs of benefit claimants are inadequate, potentially resulting in inappropriate placements (24). It is also possible that people choose to abandon a welfare system that they find de-humanising. In one widely publicised case, a man who made redundant was forced to go back to the same company, only to work for free under conditions of a community work placement (25). The use of sanctioning has been questioned on the basis of effectiveness and ethics (5). With respect to the former, our study adds to the literature that suggests while there is some evidence of a modest positive association between sanctioning and movement off welfare benefits into work, sanctioning also results in higher rates of disconnection from welfare and work (18). Further research is needed to understand the social consequences of disconnection from welfare and work, including potential risks of homelessness, hunger, and mental health problems. The incidence of these social harms is likely to limit any potential cost-savings from reducing unemployment benefit claimant rates. Our quantitative case-study of the UK has important policy implications. Across Europe and North America, governments are experimenting with conditionality and sanctioning policies. Using this quasi-natural experimental design of the UK’s harsh regime, we find a potentially large, hidden human cost that arises from persons flowing off unemployment benefit whilst remaining unemployed. There is a pressing need to institute evaluations not just of sanctioning programmes’ economic consequences but also of their human and social costs. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 24 2015, 07:48 PM Post #27 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A renewed Con/Lib or Lab/Lib coalition appeal to me. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 24 2015, 10:19 PM Post #28 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Would the Tories in opposition be as supportive of a Coalition Government as they have asked for and to a greater extent have gotten? |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 24 2015, 11:08 PM Post #29 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are Bears Catholic? No they'd oppose it with all their might |
![]() |
|
| HIGHWAY | Jan 24 2015, 11:23 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I take it in your 38 page link there is no mention of 600,000 dying in the streets,no mention of funeral directors having to work lots of overtime,or any deaths? |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 24 2015, 11:43 PM Post #31 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Only ~100 days to go now. That's 6,000 extra deaths a day. Should be a really good time to buy up shares in black cars and flower shops. Course all those funerals are going to jam up the roads. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 25 2015, 09:15 AM Post #32 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What bit of missing did you not understand? |
![]() |
|
| HIGHWAY | Jan 25 2015, 10:34 AM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Missing on a piece of paper is not the same as dying,like you keep harping on about Edited by HIGHWAY, Jan 25 2015, 10:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 25 2015, 10:42 AM Post #34 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Missing from any database needs an explanation, I suggest you try and supply one. |
![]() |
|
| HIGHWAY | Jan 25 2015, 11:02 AM Post #35 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Forget the missing from the database,you said the government was killing them,,where's the proof |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 25 2015, 11:05 AM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where have the missing gone? |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 25 2015, 11:48 AM Post #37 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah like it's possible to hide 600,000 bodies. Why not just admit you were wrong? They went from non means tested benefits they weren't entitled to to living of their means like savings and other income Is it really that hard to work that out? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 25 2015, 11:59 AM Post #38 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem they didn't go from means tested benefits they weren't entitled to living of their means like savings and other income. (That is only the ESA Work Related Activity Group) Even then the one year limit for that does not mean those people are not seriously ill or disabled. The disappeared is if you bothered to read the referenced material is far more than that. People who have been benefit sanctioned have disappeared in vary large numbers as well. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 25 2015, 12:01 PM Post #39 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks Steve, for having the sense to not dismiss this question as 'just another subtle biased criticism', which it is not. The almost certain fact is that the Tories in opposition will do their damnedest to bring down a Coalition government .......... we saw it with student fees when the Tory whip had Tory MPs siding with Liberals and Labour rebels because they smelt blood. The importance of this is lost on those that see everything in partisan terms ..... it is a wrecking policy, that has the potential to do harm to us all, and to the economy. Integrity, honour, these are terms that have no place in right-wing politics and I say that with conviction not with bias. |
![]() |
|
| HIGHWAY | Jan 25 2015, 02:03 PM Post #40 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Would it not be better if you said I have no idea what is happening to those people,instead of saying they government are killing them |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:31 PM Jul 11