[Archived] The General Election 2015

[thenodrog]

Child poverty won't be a problem much longer because the evil Duncan Smith is going to rewrite the rules defining poverty. So there you are, change the goalposts and the problem is fixed.

Meanwhile the kids go hungry.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-scraps-target-5983348

Do they really Jim? Read this...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31041864

"Eustace de Sousa, national lead for children, young people and families at Public Health England, said that overall childhood obesity rates had remained stable since 2010. "However for children from the poorest households levels have continued to worsen, so there is no room for complacency."

Doesn't read like many kids from the poorest households are going hungry to me. Quite the opposite in fact. Surely the Tories are to be congratulated for tackling obesity (the 'new smoking') and looking after the health of the poorer people in our society wouldn't you say?

[jim mk2]

The definition of poverty itself explains it. I lived in what is now deemed relative poverty all my formative years. As did lots of people but it wasn't labelled as such then. People in that situation now are deemed to be in relative poverty. It simply puts an emotive spin on things. What I do know was that no one was in absolute poverty and no one is now.

This is 2015, not the 1950s. The world has moved on. Standards are higher. Expectations are higher. Britain is a very rich country - but it is rewarding only the privileged few. Poverty or even relative poverty should not exist if wealth were spread fairly - but poverty is increasing. And this government is making it worse.

[thenodrog]

So the money is better spent on giving a tax break?

Read my link. You say child poverty is increasing, Jim says the kids in the poorest households are going hungry yet the figures reveal that the kids from the poorest households are most at risk of obesity. Someone's got it wrong eh?

[jim mk2]

For those who think quite rightly that Osborne's "Northern Powerhouse" (poorhouse) is a big Tory con this is a good read.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/06/wally-believing-talk-northern-powerhouse

[Baz]

Read my link. You say child poverty is increasing, Jim says the kids in the poorest households are going hungry yet the figures reveal that the kids from the poorest households are most at risk of obesity. Someone's got it wrong eh?

The governments own figures say poverty is increasing.

So priority-wise.... tax breaks or child poverty?

[thenodrog]

or fat podgy kids?

[Steve Moss]

That is normally when couples have more kids than they can possibly afford then expect the taxpayer to help out. It's irresponsible in the extreme and sometimes deliberate.

Is that a fact you can back up Al?

Here's some anecdotal evidence: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/470687/Get-pregnant-for-benefits-Outrage-as-shameless-mum-tells-daughter-have-baby-for-welfare

You can bet if one is brave (or stupid) enough to say it, many others are thinking it.

And I believe there are two sound economic rules which have a bearing on the issue:

1. If you want more of something, subsidize it.

2. If you want less of something, tax it.

Draw your own conclusions.

[jim mk2]

Osborne's latest assault on the lower paid threatens Blackburn families.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/07/benefit-cuts-blackburn-child-working-tax-credits

[Stuart]

A very depressing read; very close to home.

[Gav]

Osborne's latest assault on the lower paid threatens Blackburn families.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/07/benefit-cuts-blackburn-child-working-tax-credits

The country has voted this lot in Jim, they told everyone they're going to target the poor with massive welfare cuts yet the country voted for them.

Just to put things into perspective, Gideon is going to cut funding for the poorest working familes from 26k to 23k which will save 300m. Thats working familes where parents go out working but don't earn 26k a years, so they get a 'top up'.

Tax evasion/avoidance is worth 100bn, Gideon refuses to go after these corporations, you have to ask yourselves why, hopefully people will work it out by the next election......

[thenodrog]

The country has voted this lot in Jim, they told everyone they're going to target the poor with massive welfare cuts yet the country voted for them.

That's called democracy Gav. Majority rule. Ever thought majority just got sick of subsidising an ever increasing minority. Do you want us to end up like Greece?

Who wrote that daft article btw? The editor of Big Issue? I thought it was a spoof at first because there's bleeding heart fingerprints all over that story. Diabetes is not usually a reason to give up all work. I can't see the council making her redundant through that even if it were legal to do so. I know a person very well who suffers diabetes severely enough to need to inject insulin frequently every day, yet she holds down full time employment, doesn't use it as a disability and she's twice that ladies age. Also the lady next up complains that her husband is only working 16 hours a week. Not good but what is stopping him taking up a second job? If he stays at 16 hours he'll never pay a penny in tax so what temerity to seek hard working people to subsidise his family? Scrounging is becoming like a disease around these parts and is a slight on the people who are in genuine need of help.

[Gav]

That's called democracy Gav. Majority rule. Ever thought majority just got sick of subsidising an ever increasing minority. do you want us to end up like Greece?

Greeks don't pay tax, in this country tax evasion/avoidance is worth 100bn, so we're not unlike Greece really.

"We have got 14,000 children who come from working families who are dependent on that tax credit just to make ends meet. There’s going to be a devastating effect on those families, but also on the local economy, because these people spend that money – they don’t put it in an ISA and stash it away for a rainy day.”

WORKING FAMILES ON POOR WAGES - NOT SCROUNGERS LOOKING FOR HANDOUTS, THESE ARE LOCAL PEOPLE LIVING IN BLACKBURN WHO WORK.

Do these people not deserve better?

[Al]

.

As an lazy internet poster who can't be arsed to lift a finger to back up your increasingly ludicrous claims, you are exactly the same as the "dollopers" (a silly word but it's one you seem to understand) you continue to castigate ad nauseum.

What a stupid thing to say. The two things are completely unconnected. I have backed up my assertions to my satisfaction. Don't blame me if you can't back up yours.

Child poverty won't be a problem much longer because the evil Duncan Smith is going to rewrite the rules defining poverty. So there you are, change the goalposts and the problem is fixed.

Meanwhile the kids go hungry.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-scraps-target-5983348

Quotes from socialist rags are meaningless. I've told you this before Jim.

Here's some anecdotal evidence: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/470687/Get-pregnant-for-benefits-Outrage-as-shameless-mum-tells-daughter-have-baby-for-welfare

You can bet if one is brave (or stupid) enough to say it, many others are thinking it.

And I believe there are two sound economic rules which have a bearing on the issue:

1. If you want more of something, subsidize it.

2. If you want less of something, tax it.

Draw your own conclusions.

This is more like it Jim. A quote from a proper paper.

[K-Hod]

To be fair Al, you're just dismissing stats because you don't like the paper they're reported in, this doesn't discredit their accuracy, the truth is the truth.

You can't just move the goalposts because you don't like what is said.

It stands to reason that anything written in the Express would be pro-Tory, like anything in the Mirror would be pro-Labour....

[Al]

To be fair Al, you're just dismissing stats because you don't like where they've come from, this doesn't discredit their accuracy.

The Express and The Mail are an absolute crock of dung, proper papers? You're better than that Al!

You are right. I don't accept articles from socialist rags and the Mirror, The Independent (who gave it that name?) and the Guardian are just that. It does discredit their accuracy!

[K-Hod]

You are right. I don't accept articles from socialist rags and the Mirror, The Independent (who gave it that name?) and the Guardian are just that. It does discredit their accuracy!

As I said, the truth is still the truth.

[Al]

As I said, the truth is still the truth.

But you won't get it from socialist rags!

[K-Hod]

But you won't get it from socialist rags!

Forget it.

This cold, callous attitude towards those worse off is something I can't abide. Whilst there are dollopers that take the proverbial that nobody can stand, there are large numbers struggling to make ends meet with a shocking standard of living that is not to be envied. Would you swap places with them? I doubt it. Do they ever go on holiday? Have a nice car?

Do anything good, go anywhere nice? Do they heck.

All this talk about 'don't have kids if you can't afford them' is all well and good in an ideal world, but life isn't always that simple.

Anyway, sorry folks, I got a little bit ranty there!!

[jim mk2]

What a stupid thing to say. The two things are completely unconnected. I have backed up my assertions to my satisfaction. Don't blame me if you can't back up yours.

You are lazy because you have made a decision not to read an article but then decide to share your blatantly unfounded opinion that the article you refuse to read is "absolute crap" !

The thought process you undergo is something like this:

1. I'm not going to read that because I don't like what I imagine that it says.

2. Nobody else should read articles that say things that I don't like.

3. I'm going to leave a comment saying how crap the article is in order to dissuade other people from reading it.

This kind of behaviour is about as clear a demonstration of intellectual laziness as is possible.

[jim mk2]

WORKING FAMILES ON POOR WAGES - NOT SCROUNGERS LOOKING FOR HANDOUTS, THESE ARE LOCAL PEOPLE LIVING IN BLACKBURN WHO WORK.

Just another example of the Tory justification narrative that the unemployed are largely idle and feckless layabouts "sponging" off Britain's hard working people.

It helps them to divide society by stoking resentment amongst working people, that those without work are living a "life of luxury" on benefits.

It's know as political distraction technique whereby the Tories and the right wing press would have us believe that the problems of the past 5 years was not caused by politicians, reckless bankers, property speculators and the corporate fatcats, but by the poorest people in society.

This kind of narrative is often backed up with extreme individual cases, cherry-picked statistics or outright lies (see the Daily Mail or Express almost every day).

Then, once the reactionary "thinker" has had their head filled with scrounger narratives and falsified claims, they then go around spreading scrounger narratives of their own, combining the misleading and inaccurate bile that they've read in the right wing press in places like this (see Al and thenodrog). .

[Gav]

Yes you're absolutely right Jim and it worked a treat, look at the election results.

The Tories actually told everyone before the election that welfare was going to be cut and cut massively, people voted for it and now we're going to see just how big the cuts will be.

The 'Northern Powerhouse' will be bearing the brunt, places like Blackburn in particular.

[Al]

You are lazy because you have made a decision not to read an article but then decide to share your blatantly unfounded opinion that the article you refuse to read is "absolute crap" !

The thought process you undergo is something like this:

1. I'm not going to read that because I don't like what I imagine that it says.

2. Nobody else should read articles that say things that I don't like.

3. I'm going to leave a comment saying how crap the article is in order to dissuade other people from reading it.

This kind of behaviour is about as clear a demonstration of intellectual laziness as is possible.

It's from a socialist rag. Not interested.

[Al]

Forget it.

This cold, callous attitude towards those worse off is something I can't abide. Whilst there are dollopers that take the proverbial that nobody can stand, there are large numbers struggling to make ends meet with a shocking standard of living that is not to be envied. Would you swap places with them? I doubt it. Do they ever go on holiday? Have a nice car?

Do anything good, go anywhere nice? Do they heck.

I have a good standard of living, plenty of holidays and a decent car but do you know what K-hod. I stayed on a school, got a decent job because of it and worked all my life. That's how I earned my lifestyle not because I await a giro each week and what's more I'm not about to let some socialist bleeding heart take it away from me. I bloody well earned it.

All this talk about 'don't have kids if you can't afford them' is all well and good in an ideal world, but life isn't always that simple.

Benefits or no benefits having more than two kids is socially irresponsible. The planet can't support it.

Anyway, sorry folks, I got a little bit ranty there!!

No problem. Say what you believe. You are far more acceptable than Jim. Similarly I don't have to agree with you.

[Al]

Just another example of the Tory justification narrative that the unemployed are largely idle and feckless layabouts "sponging" off Britain's hard working people.

It helps them to divide society by stoking resentment amongst working people, that those without work are living a "life of luxury" on benefits.

It's know as political distraction technique whereby the Tories and the right wing press would have us believe that the problems of the past 5 years was not caused by politicians, reckless bankers, property speculators and the corporate fatcats, but by the poorest people in society.

This kind of narrative is often backed up with extreme individual cases, cherry-picked statistics or outright lies (see the Daily Mail or Express almost every day).

Then, once the reactionary "thinker" has had their head filled with scrounger narratives and falsified claims, they then go around spreading scrounger narratives of their own, combining the misleading and inaccurate bile that they've read in the right wing press in places like this (see Al and thenodrog). .

More Jim B/S. If you want to quote from socialist rags it's up to you but don't expect me to read your propaganda and don't knock me for reading the Express. By the way I don't read the Mail it's a bit Jackanory.

[K-Hod]

Forget it.

This cold, callous attitude towards those worse off is something I can't abide. Whilst there are dollopers that take the proverbial that nobody can stand, there are large numbers struggling to make ends meet with a shocking standard of living that is not to be envied. Would you swap places with them? I doubt it. Do they ever go on holiday? Have a nice car?

Do anything good, go anywhere nice? Do they heck.

I have a good standard of living, plenty of holidays and a decent car but do you know what K-hod. I stayed on a school, got a decent job because of it and worked all my life. That's how I earned my lifestyle not because I await a giro each week and what's more I'm not about to let some socialist bleeding heart take it away from me. I bloody well earned it.

All this talk about 'don't have kids if you can't afford them' is all well and good in an ideal world, but life isn't always that simple.

Benefits or no benefits having more than two kids is socially irresponsible. The planet can't support it.

Anyway, sorry folks, I got a little bit ranty there!!

No problem. Say what you believe. You are far more acceptable than Jim. Similarly I don't have to agree with you.

Nobody's taking anything away from you Al, I was merely stating that I suspect you wouldn't want to swap places with those that await a giro each week.....