The UK General Politics Thread Page 47

  • Page

    of 253 First / Last

  • MrDigital 8 Oct 2012 19:29:52 1,866 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Jeepers wrote:
    On the one hand, I'm yer classic hand-wringing, bleeding heart liberal.

    On the other, I fucking hate poor people

    What to do?
    No... But thanks for the crude malformation.

    Formerly TheStylishHobo and Geesh.

  • Clive_Dunn 8 Oct 2012 20:10:59 4,788 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I find the demonisation of "benefit scroungers" to be one of the most unattractive faces of the modern Tory party.

    There should be an incentive to work, but that incentive has got to be that going to work pays more than not. Sadly though we've created an economy where high child care costs and low entry wages trap people into benefit reliance.

    Of course it's much easier for the Daily Mail readers ( the real beating heart of the Tory party ) to focus on the few abuses of the system, rather than fixing the inherent flaws in the system. A progressive party would look to introduce free childcare and raise the minimum wage to a decent standard of living rate. Sadly though it would appear the days of the visionary politician are long gone, and that happened long before the countries finances went to shit.

    The only good thing to come out of the coalition will be the end of the Lib Dems as a party after they get wiped at the next general election. Hopefully it'll mean the social democrats can rejoin Labour and stop splitting the left of centre vote. Nick Cleggs true legacy I hope. He really is a cunt.
  • Varkon 8 Oct 2012 20:32:28 23 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Surely the shares for less employment rights goes against EU Law in some way in that companies cant force you to give up employment rights regardless of any said benefit. In addition aren't employee shares worthless if the company is not publicly listed for trading of shares?
  • Jeepers 8 Oct 2012 20:33:37 13,311 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Geesh wrote:
    Jeepers wrote:
    On the one hand, I'm yer classic hand-wringing, bleeding heart liberal.

    On the other, I fucking hate poor people

    What to do?
    No... But thanks for the crude malformation.
    Genuinely not aimed at you chap.
  • RobTheBuilder 8 Oct 2012 21:16:32 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The U25 living at home thing is basically saying that parents who have no money because of cuts should bear the burden of younger people who have no jobs, training or benefits because of the cuts.

    Same as their "use the bank of mum and dad"... WHAT BANK? So few parents could afford to pay for their kids deposit as to render it pointless, and they aren't likely to be getting a bank loan for it now are they?!
  • spamdangled 8 Oct 2012 21:19:45 27,441 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    I like to be fairly open minded when it comes to the Tories but those are fucking disgusting ideas. Its bad enough we are still fighting the EU working week rules without actually going down the 'liberal scaremongering' argument against Compliance.
    There was a guy on the BBC earlier who made the point that, depending on the employer, the shares won't be easily tradeable either. While they might be worth 50k in theory, in reality they may as well be worthless.

    Depending on the company.

    Plus it doesn't do much to help small businesses. Uncle Alfred who runs the grocers on the village high street isn't exactly likely to be a public company.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 21:20:44 08-10-2012

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Bremenacht 8 Oct 2012 23:24:58 19,647 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It'll also lead to a race to the bottom, as companies find ways of including it in minimum-wage roles, but offering fuck-all in return e.g 'free packet of crisps in return for giving up your employment rights'. Or inevitably, 'give up your employment rights entitlement or we won't hire you'.

    I know this may sounds a bit heartless, but I actually agree with setting a maximum number of children for whom you can claim benefits. Not from the point of view of saving a few bob (or whatever it amounts to), but from a moral point of view: I don't like people who have lots of kids even though they can't look after them properly. Kicking them out on the street when they're old enough to toddle and feeding them saturated shit isn't parenting as I know it. I don't think it would be fair to apply such a rule retrospectively though.
  • spamdangled 9 Oct 2012 00:34:48 27,441 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    On the flipside though, who will then ensure those kids are looked after correctly? It seems like a recipe for disaster to me - we could either end up with a generation of neglected children (because the parents, for all the will in the world, are unable to care for them), or a massive boom in the amoount of children in state care. I doubt it will do much at all to actually limit birthrates, as I don't think most children are deliberately planned that way. It also sends a worrying message out regarding promoting terminations in the lower classes.

    And that's before you consider what it might do to the NHS re: abortion numbers and costs.

    I'm not one of the people who think that women deliberately get themselves pregnant to claim off the state by any stretch, so I seriously struggle to see the long-term thinking in this idea, as it seems to come from exactly that POV.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 00:35:24 09-10-2012

    Edited by darkmorgado at 00:36:29 09-10-2012

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • spamdangled 9 Oct 2012 00:39:42 27,441 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    By and large, everything that has come out of the Tory conference seems to be a big, loud "fuck the poor", taking another huge swathe of cash out of welfare whilst ruling out the Mansion Tax and only making vague wishy-washy claims that "we will make sure the rich pay their fair share" without any policy to actually back the statement up.

    And then Osborne has the cheek to say "We're all in it together".

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • RobTheBuilder 9 Oct 2012 00:54:07 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I wonder how the Tories will deal with the increased crime that will occur if they reduce the abortion time frame to 12 weeks... oh no wait that's in 18 years time, they don't care about that.

    @darkmorgado That's basically it. A rich cheat is our friend and a poor cheat is scum. A rich person works harder if you give them money but a poor person only works harder if you take away money. The poor should live at home, wealthy people should have big houses. Great Britain is entirely south of Leicester. I don't care how bad Labour or the Lib Dems are, I will take either of them over these inhuman cunts.
  • Bremenacht 9 Oct 2012 01:05:15 19,647 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    a massive boom in the amoount of children in state care.
    I dunno about there being 'all the will in the world' in many cases, but yeah, the outcome you suggest is entirely plausible and we know how the Tories detest 'state care'. Maybe it's not a good idea.
  • spamdangled 9 Oct 2012 01:15:41 27,441 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    What I found really bizarre were his reasons for ruling out the Mansion Tax, saying that he didn't think it was fair for everyone who had worked to buy a home would be faced with a massive tax bill.

    I mean, seriously, does he genuinely think that you either have a house worth over a million OR you live in a council estate? Because that's how it came across to me.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • RobTheBuilder 9 Oct 2012 01:19:24 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Or live with your parents because there is no way to get a mortgage, no jobs available and no state support for council housing...

    This government is genuinely worse than Thatcher. It's like a 13th century land owner running the country.
  • spamdangled 9 Oct 2012 01:26:21 27,441 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Well they did make a big noise about how they were proud to call themselves "Thatcher's Children"

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • RobTheBuilder 9 Oct 2012 01:29:00 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    "Thatcher's Fucked Up Heartless Selfish Compassion-Free Children"
    Corrected!

    Normally kids fix the mistakes of the preceding generation. This lot have amplified them.

    Edited by RobTheBuilder at 01:29:11 09-10-2012
  • Moot_Point 9 Oct 2012 01:29:11 4,594 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    The best solution would be for the Lib Dems to pull out of this one sided coalition. The End and happy ever after!

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • RobTheBuilder 9 Oct 2012 01:29:52 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Moot_Point They are too scared of losing power. The irony being that the only way they are likely to get any again is by pulling out of power now.
  • Bremenacht 9 Oct 2012 01:35:56 19,647 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think the big problem with the Tories is that their leadership are seen to be failing. So, they seek to bolster support within their own party before considering anyone outside the party. Doesn't necessarily mean they go ahead with what they bark about, which -you'll agree- is common behaviour in all parties.

    LibDems will make the rich pay! Labour will sort out those bad banks! Tories will make the poor useful once again (by boiling them into glue)!

    Wait for the pudding -or more likely, the fudge- and see if there's proof in it.
  • Moot_Point 9 Oct 2012 01:36:56 4,594 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @RobTheBuilder If they do it must be now, before the boundry changes happen. Unless those changes have already happened.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • RobTheBuilder 9 Oct 2012 01:39:00 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Moot_Point Not sure on that one. But the sooner the Lib Dems renounce their political sins the quicker we can get back to only hating one party (excluding the BNP and UKIP obviously, I don't count them as political parties).
  • Moot_Point 9 Oct 2012 02:06:27 4,594 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Strong possibility

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • Khanivor 9 Oct 2012 02:26:31 41,239 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Be interesting to see if in 20 years time people view these changes like those of Thatcher are viewed - brutal and enacted without empathy but effective in tugging the country away from a direction which was leading to irrelevance for large section of the population while grinding down the potential of the rest.
  • Dougs 9 Oct 2012 06:32:01 69,469 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    @RobTheBuilder If they do it must be now, before the boundry changes happen. Unless those changes have already happened.
    That bill is floundering due to the Lords reform failure. Lib Dems will now oppose it.
  • Dougs 9 Oct 2012 06:39:37 69,469 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    It'll also lead to a race to the bottom, as companies find ways of including it in minimum-wage roles, but offering fuck-all in return e.g 'free packet of crisps in return for giving up your employment rights'. Or inevitably, 'give up your employment rights entitlement or we won't hire you'.

    I know this may sounds a bit heartless, but I actually agree with setting a maximum number of children for whom you can claim benefits. Not from the point of view of saving a few bob (or whatever it amounts to), but from a moral point of view: I don't like people who have lots of kids even though they can't look after them properly. Kicking them out on the street when they're old enough to toddle and feeding them saturated shit isn't parenting as I know it. I don't think it would be fair to apply such a rule retrospectively though.
    What enrages me is the suggestion that all these people popping out kids somehow have a life of luxury. They may think they're happy and have one up on the system but for the most part, it's a pretty miserable existence, living week to week. You'll always get the odd one that rakes it in and lives in a lovely big house, but by and large, they're just getting by, normally in shite accommodation on shite areas. I also don't see how it's enforceable.
  • bad09 9 Oct 2012 08:36:24 6,254 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Dougs wrote:

    What enrages me is the suggestion that all these people popping out kids somehow have a life of luxury. They may think they're happy and have one up on the system but for the most part, it's a pretty miserable existence, living week to week. You'll always get the odd one that rakes it in and lives in a lovely big house, but by and large, they're just getting by, normally in shite accommodation on shite areas. I also don't see how it's enforceable.

    While I agree the inaccurate picture painted of people just knocking out kids and living it up on benefits is just nonsense there are people just clearly taking the piss and just expecting the state to look after them and their offspring. My Mrs knows a woman who doesn't work and neither does her partner yet this year she popped out their FIFTH child.
  • spamdangled 9 Oct 2012 08:43:50 27,441 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    The best solution would be for the Lib Dems to pull out of this one sided coalition. The End and happy ever after!
    Something we can actually agree on.

    To be honest, the way that the Tories keep fucking them over (or trying to), particularly all the backbench MPs continually whinging and now the whole 10bn welfare cut prommised by Osborne without coalition agreement as well as ruling out the mansion tax, and I imagine relations are decidedly frosty down at No. 10 right now.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • spamdangled 9 Oct 2012 08:47:09 27,441 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    Strong possibility
    I don't see how it can realistically go ahead. Labour are opposed to them because they unfairly favour the Tories, and the same with the Lib Dems. The Tories don't have the votes to push it through without some form of significant rebellion from MPs in the other two parties, and I just don't see that happening.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • TheSaint 9 Oct 2012 09:18:24 14,826 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    Same as their "use the bank of mum and dad"... WHAT BANK? So few parents could afford to pay for their kids deposit as to render it pointless, and they aren't likely to be getting a bank loan for it now are they?!
    It's quite common down here in the south east.
  • TheSaint 9 Oct 2012 09:24:30 14,826 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    What I found really bizarre were his reasons for ruling out the Mansion Tax, saying that he didn't think it was fair for everyone who had worked to buy a home would be faced with a massive tax bill.

    I mean, seriously, does he genuinely think that you either have a house worth over a million OR you live in a council estate? Because that's how it came across to me.
    These days paying 1mil for your house doesn't necessarily mean you would be living in a mansion either. It's not uncommon to see standard four of five bedroom houses going for that in north London.

    Something like this:

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-35967493.html
  • Dougs 9 Oct 2012 09:28:51 69,469 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    The level the Lib Dems wanted was 2m, which seems much more appropriate. Not convinced it is the right vehicle myself, but with that off the table, there doesn't appear to be much on what "the rich" will be paying extra. Seems most likely that those slap-bang in the middle will get hit again, along the lines of the child benefit reductions.
  • Page

    of 253 First / Last

Log in or register to reply