# Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit



## Quartz (Jun 24, 2012)

Grrr....

BBC article here.

Completely half-baked as usual.

Well, Mr Cameron, what about those who want but have no jobs? Well, Mr Cameron, what about those who are lucky enough to have a job, but it's far from their parents? Well, Mr Cameron, what about... well, you get the idea.



> Downing Street said they were Conservative plans for after the next general election.




Hint of an early breakup of the coalition?


----------



## Belushi (Jun 24, 2012)

Will under 25's be paying reduced taxes if they aren't entitled to the same benefits as other adults?


----------



## Quartz (Jun 24, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Will under 25's be paying reduced taxes if they aren't entitled to the same benefits as other adults?


 
Of course not!

And I accidentally deleted a particularly glaring category: what about those who have no parents?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 24, 2012)

That was my first thought. What about children leaving care?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2012)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Grrr....
> 
> BBC article here.
> 
> ...



What makes you suggest that? The tories are loving the coalition, they're not going to break it up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2012)

What about young people fleeing abusive parents or an abusive relationship?


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 24, 2012)

what happens to people with kids who will already be under 25 ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2012)

There will be another u turn


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 24, 2012)

"a couple living with their parents and saving to get married"

is 'call me dave' living in some sort of time warp...........

i live in a small two bedroomed flat with my youngest (aged 18) how would either of my two eldest live with me and save to get married ?


----------



## mr.tease (Jun 24, 2012)

He is absolutely clueless about the real world- for a lot of under 25 year olds, living with their parents is not an option due to sexual, physical or verbal abuse. On top of that, a lot of parents kick their kids out of the house as soon as they can (some parents genuinely don't give a crap about their kids)- why should a young person then be penalized by the state when they did not choose to be made homeless, and cannot force their parents to let them return?

Furthermore- it's complete BS anyway! If Cameron really is motivated by the belief that young people should live with their parents etc, then why is his government about to start penalizing parents who have their kids living with them? The government is cutting housing benefit to households for each young person they have living with them, claiming that those young people (probably unemployed and out of education due to the governments policies) should be contributing in rent to their parents.

So essentially the governments policy is that if a young person lives at home with their parents, the household will lose some housing benefit, and if the young person leaves home they will lose all of their housing benefit. Why does he hate young people?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 24, 2012)

And presumably if the parent/s were in receipt of housing benefit themselves, they wouldn't then be able to claim for the adult children either (the thread in here by teena being a case in point...five children but three of them adults, with her current benefits putting her above the coming benefit cap so now almost definitely unlikely to even be able to afford a two bed place).

Wtf is he on? 


Edited...got it a bit wrong!


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 24, 2012)

Does he actually want another riot? It seems like this is exactly what he wants.
Because he's too stupid to realise that a lot of young people move to look for work and need to claim housing benefit while looking and even after  finding a job, he's going to stop people from moving away from areas of high unemployment. Ie the total opposite of tory 'get on your bike and look for work' ideology.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 24, 2012)

mr.tease said:


> Why does he hate young people?


They have always epically hated young and poor. What he hasn't realised is this will also affect young unemployed graduates just the same. Trapped from moving to look for work forever.
I guess they want to see young mums punished into giving up their kids if their families won't support them.
Of course the cost of looking after  kids won't cost the state a penny.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 24, 2012)

The real solution is to pay everyone a living wage. Typical arse-about-face thinking from a braindead troupe of former public schoolboys.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2012)

dunno why they are making plans for after the next GE, well, other than 'who will be in the shadow cabinet' obviously. Not you clegg, you have served your purpose


----------



## Tacita (Jun 24, 2012)

totally unworkable but paving the way for similar attacks on the vulnerable. It all goes into making people feel aggrieved and divided


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 24, 2012)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...go-back-to-your-parents.291417/#post-11055880

/pogo


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Does he actually want another riot? It seems like this is exactly what he wants.
> Because he's too stupid to realise that a lot of young people move to look for work and need to claim housing benefit while looking and even after finding a job, he's going to stop people from moving away from areas of high unemployment. Ie the total opposite of tory 'get on your bike and look for work' ideology.


 
Yup. My first thought when I heard about this was "I predict a riot". It's an utterly barmy idea.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 24, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Does he actually want another riot? It seems like this is exactly what he wants.


 
Probably.

Start to privatise the justice system and what's the next logical step? Got to stimulate demand to keep the shareholders happy.


----------



## bmd (Jun 24, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Probably.
> 
> Start to privatise the justice system and what's the next logical step? Got to stimulate demand to keep the shareholders happy.



It's already started, Probation is the low hanging fruit.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 24, 2012)

> David Cameron said he wanted to stop those who were working from feeling resentment towards people on benefits.


 
Aw, that's nice. Dave's going to cut out his tongue.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Probably.
> 
> Start to privatise the justice system and what's the next logical step? Got to stimulate demand to keep the shareholders happy.


 
Also, private prisons will need a decent supply of healthy young folk to maximise the profits from prison labour. It's all beginning to make sense.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 24, 2012)

sheothebudworths said:


> And presumably if the parent/s were in receipt of housing benefit themselves, they wouldn't then be able to claim for the adult children either (the thread in here by teena being a case in point...five children but three of them adults, with her current benefits putting her above the coming benefit cap so now almost definitely unlikely to even be able to afford a two bed place).
> 
> Wtf is he on?
> 
> ...


 
Furthermore, they may have already lost their house and downgraded because of the spare room tax


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 24, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Also, private prisons will need a decent supply of healthy young folk to maximise the profits from prison labour. It's all beginning to make sense.


 
With no jobs and no housing, prison is going to look increasingly attractive to young people. Roof over your head, roads to dig, free meals.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

Danny Alexander is busy not talking about this on BBC1. What a nob.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> With no jobs and no housing, prison is going to look increasingly attractive to young people. Roof over your head, roads to dig, free meals.


 
How do I sign up?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 24, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How do I sign up?


 
Set fire to your local police station.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Set fire to your local police station.


 
The police station is right next door to the fire station though. Best go for the local conservative club as to ensure a half decent burn time. Don't want it to be put out before it achieves it's purpose.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 24, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> With no jobs and no housing, prison is going to look increasingly attractive to young people. Roof over your head, roads to dig, free meals.


 
In the scorching sun whilst watching busty, sweaty women draped over wet sponges and cars?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 24, 2012)

This is coming from Cameron, who before the election claimed £1000's per month for a second home, and now has at least three homes, two of them paid for by the taxpayer and one paid for (I assume) from the proceeds of his father's tax avoidance business. You couldn't make it up.

They can cut housing benefit once all the MPs get rid of their second homes and start staying in a fucking Travelodge or on a camp bed in their offices.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2012)

mr.tease said:


> He is absolutely clueless about the real world- for a lot of under 25 year olds, living with their parents is not an option due to sexual, physical or verbal abuse. On top of that, a lot of parents kick their kids out of the house as soon as they can (some parents genuinely don't give a crap about their kids)- why should a young person then be penalized by the state when they did not choose to be made homeless, and cannot force their parents to let them return?
> 
> Furthermore- it's complete BS anyway! If Cameron really is motivated by the belief that young people should live with their parents etc, then why is his government about to start penalizing parents who have their kids living with them? The government is cutting housing benefit to households for each young person they have living with them, claiming that those young people (probably unemployed and out of education due to the governments policies) should be contributing in rent to their parents.
> 
> So essentially the governments policy is that if a young person lives at home with their parents, the household will lose some housing benefit, and if the young person leaves home they will lose all of their housing benefit. Why does he hate young people?


He doesn't seem to keen on parents either. I don't think there's many people he likes


----------



## Part 2 (Jun 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> What about young people fleeing abusive parents or an abusive relationship?


 
I think he's mentioned something about this. In the way he does when he hasn't thought out the proposal properly.



Mrs Magpie said:


> That was my first thought. What about children leaving care?


 
Well they're currently exempt from the single room rent restrictions so I'd imagine they'd be exempt from this too. (The stupid thing is they're only exempt until they're 21 so someone who's been getting full HB on a one bed flat will be told that one their 21st birthday they'll only be getting single room HB and will most likely have to move anyway).


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> He doesn't seem to keen on parents either. I don't think there's many people he likes


He likes the Brookses.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2012)

the tory party are amazing, they aren't just content to rob the people they supposedly serve, they actually despise you while doing so and wag the moralistic finger at the same time. Burn these cunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> the tory party are amazing, they aren't just content to rob the people they supposedly serve, they actually despise you while doing so and wag the moralistic finger at the same time. Burn these cunts.


Burning's too good for them  back to breaking on the wheel or the stocks


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> The real solution is to pay everyone a living wage. Typical arse-about-face thinking from a braindead troupe of former public schoolboys.


 
That, or they could just build council housing again - which would be cheaper than shelling out billions in HB to private landlords, would provide a stimulus effect to the housebuilding sector and associated industries, would provide a political boost if they brought in a system whereby long-term tenants could buy their home, and would result in lower rents throughout the rest of the market (and thus result in lower spending on HB).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2012)

alas they've no interest in making housing affordable, especially through such NAKEDLY SOCIALIST methods as building social housing- those wild men at the TUC will ruin us all, dead to be unburied etc etc. Property must remain inviolable, even if we have to use tax money to prop the rotten edifice up


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

"The Mail quoted Mr Cameron contrasting a couple living with their parents and saving before getting married and having children *with a couple who have a child and get a council home*."

Because that happens *SO* fucking often, doesn't it, you high-forehead, hopeless piece of inbred, shit-scented worm jism!  What fucking "council homes" are they getting, bollock-chops? Magic ones built in the same fucking fantasy-land where our crumbling economy *isn't* Osborne's fault, you worthless goat-rapist?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> They have always epically hated young and poor. What he hasn't realised is this will also affect young unemployed graduates just the same. Trapped from moving to look for work forever.
> I guess they want to see young mums punished into giving up their kids if their families won't support them.
> Of course the cost of looking after kids won't cost the state a penny.


 
The aim will be to farm the kids out to upper-class inbreds whose own gene pools are so shallow they can no longer have children themselves.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> That, or they could just build council housing again - which would be cheaper than shelling out billions in HB to private landlords, would provide a stimulus effect to the housebuilding sector and associated industries, would provide a political boost if they brought in a system whereby long-term tenants could buy their home, and would result in lower rents throughout the rest of the market (and thus result in lower spending on HB).


 
They'd never build new council housing as this unresearched report from Localis suggests (Tories despise evidence). The authors characterise social housing as "welfare housing". One of the authors is the former leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council who has recently become Bozza's Deputy Mayor for policing.
http://www.localis.org.uk/images/Localis Principles for Social Housing Reform WEB.pdf


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

Does anybody know how many under-25's are currently in receipt of HB?


----------



## weepiper (Jun 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "The Mail quoted Mr Cameron contrasting a couple living with their parents and saving before getting married and having children *with a couple who have a child and get a council home*."
> 
> Because that happens *SO* fucking often, doesn't it, you high-forehead, hopeless piece of inbred, shit-scented worm jism!  What fucking "council homes" are they getting, bollock-chops? Magic ones built in the same fucking fantasy-land where our crumbling economy *isn't* Osborne's fault, you worthless goat-rapist?


 
So many holes in this policy I don't know where to start. How about with
1)only parents over a certain income level can afford to have adult children living with them without paying rent,
2) they won't be 'saving for getting married' if they're paying their parents rent,
3) what about adult children of parents who are already dependent on housing benefit but have been forced to downsize by government policy and therefore don't have room for them to move back in,
4) you don't 'get a council home' for having a child,
5) and this is the biggie *80% of people receiving housing benefit are working so there is no 'contrast' here at all, only a naked attack on class grounds*


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 24, 2012)

According to the Daily Mail:



> His bold reforms could also lead to 380,000 people under 25 being stripped of housing benefits and forced to join the growing number of young adults who still live with their parents.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163773/David-Cameron-axe-housing-benefits-feckless-25s-declares-war-welfare-culture.html#ixzz1yi8BPbvT​


 
Lots of stupid comments as is to be expected of DM readers


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 24, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> They'd never build new council housing as this unresearched report from Localis suggests (Tories despise evidence). The authors characterise social housing as "welfare housing". One of the authors is the former leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council who has recently become Bozza's Deputy Mayor for policing.
> http://www.localis.org.uk/images/Localis Principles for Social Housing Reform WEB.pdf


 

Fuck all to do with the thread, but I've always disliked the term social housing for that very reason. People hear social housing and connect it with being on the social.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 24, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Fuck all to do with the thread, but I've always disliked the term social housing for that very reason. People hear social housing and connect it with being on the social.


Yep, it's council housing. I suspect that phrase "social housing" crept in during the Nu Labour years.


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2012)

mr.tease said:


> So essentially the governments policy is that if a young person lives at home with their parents, the household will lose some housing benefit, and if the young person leaves home they will lose all of their housing benefit. Why does he hate young people?


 
The other question should be is why are English young people so passive in response to these brutal assaults on their lives and livelihood?


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2012)

Tacita said:


> totally unworkable but paving the way for similar attacks on the vulnerable. It all goes into making people feel aggrieved and divided


 

Apparently he got the idea from that former social democratic paradise Sweden, does anyone know what has happened there, what have been the consequences for the youth there?


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Fuck all to do with the thread, but I've always disliked the term social housing for that very reason. People hear social housing and connect it with being on the social.


 
yet another(tory) thinktank, these are very undemocratic processes...


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Does anybody know how many under-25's are currently in receipt of HB?


 

Sky were quoting 380'000, thats a lot of aggrieved youths, if they lose their apathy...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

treelover said:


> Sky were quoting 380'000, thats a lot of aggrived youths, if they lose their apathy...


 
And then there is the impact on the families of those directly affected. A million people having their lives severely disrupted won't wash. Will it?


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 24, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> "a couple living with their parents and saving to get married"


The divorce rate might not be as high if they lived together first, then our society might not be so broken!!


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2012)

Sadly, i think it will, with ATOS/ESA, there have been as documented on here, many suicides, etc, and not really much opposition, it will need concerted political action, by claimants and WILOTL with its resources, etc, to challenge this, the LP won't oppose it...


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 24, 2012)

put the school leaving age up to to 25 and then anyone who doesnt like it can go and live with 'asian grooming gangs.' see, its easy to think policies through!


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2012)

Cameron is doing this to create 'clear blue water' between the Tories and the LD's and to shore up his right wing credentials, but don't think this may not happen, many people especially disabled people themselves thought IB wouldn't be abolished and new crackpot medical tests created, but they were, DLA was seen as sancrosanct, thats going now....


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 24, 2012)

blimey, do people really not know how fecken right wing he actually is?


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2012)

Cameron has stated publically he ''wants to defund the welfare state''

yesterday hundreds of campaigners, who mean business, met in London to discuss oppossing the NHS reforms, even though they are now in place, where is the same for welfare?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 24, 2012)

treelover said:


> Cameron has stated publically he ''wants to defund the welfare state''


 
  Is he going to find jobs for everyone who needs one then?If everyone earning 50 grand they can afford pension private healthcare and private unemployment benefit.Till then we need the welfare state and he can fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2012)

treelover said:


> The other question should be is why are English young people so passive in response to these brutal assaults on their lives and livelihood?


 

never known any different. Government is something that is done to you not something served by you- thats the legacy of the iron lady.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 24, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Does anybody know how many under-25's are currently in receipt of HB?


DWP stats: 385,010 under 25s claim Housing Benefit; and 204,450 of those actually have children themselves.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> DWP stats: 385,010 under 25s claim Housing Benefit; and 204,450 of those actually have children themselves.


 
In other words, they are planning to remove the housing safety net for nearly a quarter million young families. So much for the Tories being the party of family values.


----------



## harpo (Jun 24, 2012)

Chip Barm said:


> I think he's mentioned something about this. In the way he does when he hasn't thought out the proposal properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Well they're currently exempt from the single room rent restrictions so I'd imagine they'd be exempt from this too. (The stupid thing is they're only exempt until they're 21 so someone who's been getting full HB on a one bed flat will be told that one their 21st birthday they'll only be getting single room HB and will most likely have to move anyway).


 
21 today, 21 today, you'll get the key to the door taken away.

To misquote an old song.

Cameron is an evil bastard to be sure.  I hope with every fibre of my being that he doesn't get to see a second term.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2012)

Also:



> Stopping the £70-a-week dole money for the unemployed who refuse to try hard to find work or *produce a CV*.
> ​http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eckless-25s-declares-war-welfare-culture.html​


 
That'll be a short document, then.



> 1987: Born
> 1992: Went to school
> 2003: No bloody jobs
> 2012: Still no bloody jobs


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 24, 2012)

poll in the telegraph for you. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...families-off-career-ladder-claims-Labour.html


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 24, 2012)

It does seem to me that he is trying really hard to not get re-elected actually. What he really wants is a weak labour government to do one term and take all the flack for the unpopular polices they implemented (and from the earlier labour 'reforms' that are starting to bite now).


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 24, 2012)

Bloody hell torygraph two typos in one paragraph!


> "A couple will say, "we are engaged, we are both living with out parents, we are trying to save before we get married and have children and be good parents. But how dies it make us feel, Mr Cameron, when we see someone who goes ahead, has a child, gets the council home, gets the help that isn't available to us?


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> poll in the telegraph for you.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...families-off-career-ladder-claims-Labour.html


 


> Should housing benefit be scrapped for the under-25s?
> *No 85.91%* (433 votes)


 
Clearing cookies doesn't work, but real votes coming in thick and fast...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> poll in the telegraph for you.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...families-off-career-ladder-claims-Labour.html


85% of people voting "no, it shouldn't be cut" !!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> poll in the telegraph for you.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...families-off-career-ladder-claims-Labour.html


 

*Thank you for voting!*​Yes​ 15.43%​ (87 votes)​No​ 84.57%​ (477 votes)​Total Votes: 564​Return To Poll​


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 24, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> 85% of people voting "no, it shouldn't be cut" !!


LOL that's tories thinking "No I don't want my kids to come back, I want an office in the spare room thanks"


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 24, 2012)

Cameron's a clueless, upper-class, fuckwitted knobend.

Not only did he not stay at home with mummy and daddy until he got married aged 30, but he also indulged in a gap year abroad where he got to hang out with daddy's chums in the House of Parliament (worked for his godfather) and in Hong Kong (another one of daddy's chums).

It's _simply marvelous_ when jobs are simply handed to you on a plate, isn't it 

Now, where are all those real jobs - not just Tesco workfare 'working for free' ones - he thinks the unemployed are just too lazy to find?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2012)

on a minor niggle, why can't the fucking twat pronouncen'jobs' properly? Every time he says the words he does that plummy fuckers belabouring of the 'o' sound. Johbs-ah. Like he has ever done a serious days graft in his life.


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> It does seem to me that he is trying really hard to not get re-elected actually. What he really wants is a weak labour government to do one term and take all the flack for the unpopular polices they implemented (and from the earlier labour 'reforms' that are starting to bite now).


 
I think its more that he really doesnt have a clue, tbh.  This is of course one of the consequences of the rise of the political class (to use Oborne's phrase), in which being part of the set is more important than such mundane things as competence, ability, experience, common sense, honesty and possession of some kind of moral compass.

The worrying thing is of course that all of the main parties are stuffed full of, and lead by, such creatures.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 24, 2012)

The spare room tax is a direct attack on foster carers, our hb has been cut by about 40% this past 9 months as the room which we use for fostering is now deemed excess and we only qualify for a two bedroom house. ( and this is with two teenage children and a foster baby.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 24, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> The spare room tax is a direct attack on foster carers, our hb has been cut by about 40% this past 9 months as the room which we use for fostering is now deemed excess and we only qualify for a two bedroom house. ( and this is with two teenage children and a foster baby.


I thought they changed that bit, because it is so obviously bollocks and beyond stupid.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 24, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> The spare room tax is a direct attack on foster carers, our hb has been cut by about 40% this past 9 months as the room which we use for fostering is now deemed excess and we only qualify for a two bedroom house. ( and this is with two teenage children and a foster baby.



That's disgraceful, Barney, utterly disgraceful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Yep, it's council housing. I suspect that phrase "social housing" crept in during the Nu Labour years.


 
Nah, during late Thatch, when HAs were being incentivised to (hah-fucking-hah) "take up the slack" left by stopping local authorities building new council housing.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 24, 2012)

This is all just too fucking depressing 

Barney Pig, that is just a whole other level of wrong


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 24, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I thought they changed that bit, because it is so obviously bollocks and beyond stupid.


 
This is the Tories, obviously bollocks and beyond stupid is their raison d'aitre.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

treelover said:


> The other question should be is why are English young people so passive in response to these brutal assaults on their lives and livelihood?


 
What, besides decades of being indoctrinated into being politically-apathetic, of having your nose rubbed in examples of how little your views matter to those in power?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 24, 2012)

This is just trying to continue the redefinition of anyone receiving any benefits as potential jobless workshy scroungers, and benefits as charity. It's not even as if it's being seriously proposed as a policy, but even mentioning it reinforces the idea, and puts liberals on the (useless) defensive. The idea that HB is part of some sort of "poverty trap" is even more absurd than what he _usually_ means by a poverty trap, yet note how much of the response has been on the basis of "well they might be unemployed and maybe yes some of them are workshy but hey let's not be mean".

It'll take a while before they can work this up to "anyone receiving NHS treatment is a charity case" but they'll be aiming at it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> on a minor niggle, why can't the fucking twat pronouncen'jobs' properly? Every time he says the words he does that plummy fuckers belabouring of the 'o' sound. *Johbs-ah*. Like he has ever done a serious days graft in his life.


Commonly known as "Mark E. Smith syndrome".


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, during late Thatch, when HAs were being incentivised to (hah-fucking-hah) "take up the slack" left by stopping local authorities building new council housing.


Of course, she wanted an expansion of HA's, which at that point in time, were fairly minor players nationally.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This is just trying to continue the redefinition of anyone receiving any benefits as potential jobless workshy scroungers, and benefits as charity. It's not even as if it's being seriously proposed as a policy, but even mentioning it reinforces the idea, and puts liberals on the (useless) defensive. The idea that HB is part of some sort of "poverty trap" is even more absurd than what he _usually_ means by a poverty trap, yet note how much of the response has been on the basis of "well they might be unemployed and maybe yes some of them are workshy but hey let's not be mean".
> 
> It'll take a while before they can work this up to "anyone receiving NHS treatment is a charity case" but they'll be aiming at it.


 
It should be incumbent on us, as members of society, to render such ideologues fitting cases for emergency NHS treatment.

And then to block the A & E admissions, stating "he/she's a Tory. Treating them here would brand them a charity case! Don't stigmatise them, let them die pure!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Of course, she wanted an expansion of HA's, which at that point in time, were fairly minor players nationally.


 
Yep, grant aid and cheap loans through The Housing Corporation quango, and the fuckers still didn't even make a dent on the year by year increase in demand, let alone existing demand. All it ended up meaning was HAs as predatory landlords.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 24, 2012)

He would be going into the next election with this ,i wonder with things like university fees increasing and record unemployment among the young ,whether the young will get out and vote i do hope so


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2012)

of course cental gov paying for private landlords mortgages is a fucking facepalm of epic proportions, but the bumfaced one seeking to curtail this iniquitous practise? It's like he genuinely has no idea of his voter base, just as hilariously (well, better that than cry) out as touch as you can get- _he doesn't even understand the people who did vote for him_. I mean, really. REALLY, this is what we've come to, again? a bufoon with cloaked malice in charge of London and a shiny faced ignorant in charge of the whole country. How the fuck did this cretin scrape a PPE? I'm not so epically stupid as this one and belive me, I am thick. Its fucking galling to have a FUNCTIONAL IDIOT running the show. Enough to make one wish to have Mandy back. Thats not an invite mandy, please stay fuck away from power politics, you vile creature.


----------



## Turboprop (Jun 24, 2012)

Eton must be a shit school if Cameron is an example of the best they can turn out!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2012)

its just boughten privilege, there may well be excellent teachers there (I wouldn't know) but the point of attending eton is not to do with how well you engage with a subject, it is about having 'eton' on your curriculum vitae


----------



## Part 2 (Jun 24, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> i wonder with things like university fees increasing and record unemployment among the young ,whether the young will get out and vote i do hope so


 
Not a chance. Who would they vote for anyway?


----------



## abstract1 (Jun 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> There will be another u turn



There has to be - it's completely unworkable within the current legislative framework: soundbite rhetoric with no critical thinking applied.....


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2012)

abstract1 said:


> There has to be - it's completely unworkable within the current legislative framework: soundbite rhetoric with no critical thinking applied.....


 
I guess what this proposal amounts to is one part of a strategy to shift the narrative to the right. FridgeMagnet has hit the nail on the head, I reckon. Hopefully it will backfire and people will just get sick of this lot in power.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 24, 2012)

abstract1 said:


> There has to be - it's completely unworkable within the current legislative framework: soundbite rhetoric with no critical thinking applied.....


Oh really?  When "welfare reform" was forced through in spite of opposition in the House of Lords?  And the same has happened with the NHS?  All which had to be pleaded was that the financial emergency left no time or space for niceties like democracy and the HoL had to give in.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 24, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> <snip> Hopefully it will backfire and people will just get sick of this lot in power.


In my arrogant opinion none of us can afford to rely on hoping.  Not any more.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 24, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> The spare room tax is a direct attack on foster carers, our hb has been cut by about 40% this past 9 months as the room which we use for fostering is now deemed excess and we only qualify for a two bedroom house. ( and this is with two teenage children and a foster baby.


 

Fucking ridiculous.

I'm surprised more of a fuss wasn't made about the spare room tax - It seemed to slip through with very little opposition. IMO it's far more pernicious than any of the welfare to work stuff.

I hope Grant Shapps gets shagged up the arse by a robot Ken Barlow with a cheese grater for a cock.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 24, 2012)

abstract1 said:


> There has to be - it's completely unworkable within the current legislative framework: soundbite rhetoric with no critical thinking applied.....


 
Would _not_ count on it.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 24, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I thought they changed that bit, because it is so obviously bollocks and beyond stupid.


 
The lords tried to get an amendment that one spare room wouldn't count, but the govt railroaded them.


----------



## abstract1 (Jun 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Oh really?  When "welfare reform" was forced through in spite of opposition in the House of Lords?  And the same has happened with the NHS?  All which had to be pleaded was that the financial emergency left no time or space for niceties like democracy and the HoL had to give in.



Yes really! Under the current legislative framework it's completely unworkable- the CA89, CLCA2000 (and subsequent guidance) plus the Southwark Judgement, mean there is currently a clear mandate for LA's being responsible for young people in their area, plus a clear route of appeal if LA's aren't fulfilling their duties. I'm not suggesting for one minute that they won't have a good go at dismantling the various pieces of legislation, but I'd suggest it maybe a bit more tricky than the welfare reform and NHS bills - they will have to abdicate their responsibilities as corporate parents, which will present them with massive problems, and I'd hope, a serious legal challenge. It will be easier for them to do with yp who access housing via the Southwark Judgement, no doubt.

I don't disagree with you, but I think this will be more difficult for them to pass - I fucking hope so! If I'm wrong you can call me out in it ;-) I'll be working with the fallout, whatever whichway..


----------



## Greebo (Jun 24, 2012)

abstract1 said:


> <snip>I don't disagree with you, but I think this will be more difficult for them to pass - I fucking hope so! If I'm wrong you can call me out in it ;-) I'll be working with the fallout, whatever whichway..


FWIW I hope it won't happen.  But if it does, you'll owe me a pint.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> poll in the telegraph for you.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...families-off-career-ladder-claims-Labour.html



Fuck me even the torygraph doesnt think this is a good idea.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> He would be going into the next election with this ,i wonder with things like university fees increasing and record unemployment among the young ,whether the young will get out and vote i do hope so


 
Who and what for though, shaggers? The only other games in town are both "more of the same", but with a phony smile rather than a sneer.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 24, 2012)

likesfish said:


> Fuck me even the torygraph doesnt think this is a good idea.


 
gap's closing though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

Turboprop said:


> Eton must be a shit school if Cameron is an example of the best they can turn out!


 
Like most such schools, it's not about educational excellence so much as it's about drilling the ability to pass exams and how to project yourself into you. Then, if you've got two braincells to rub together, you can go to Oxbridge, and see yourself being intellectually outstripped by people who've been to state schools.


----------



## abstract1 (Jun 24, 2012)

Greebo said:


> FWIW I hope it won't happen.  But if it does, you'll owe me a pint.



No probs 

Notwithstanding the impact this policy would have on providers of housing for 25's and under, who all rely on young people claiming total or partial HB - it would render the projects and their staff redundant - which nationwide is significant. This policy would include those yp who are estranged from their families, who claim HB and IS whilst they continue their studies with a view to 'bettering' themselves - how does that fit with your ideology Mr Cameron, you mendacious over-privileged cunt?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> of course cental gov paying for private landlords mortgages is a fucking facepalm of epic proportions, but the bumfaced one seeking to curtail this iniquitous practise? It's like he genuinely has no idea of his voter base, just as hilariously (well, better that than cry) out as touch as you can get- _he doesn't even understand the people who did vote for him_. I mean, really. REALLY, this is what we've come to, again? a bufoon with cloaked malice in charge of London and a shiny faced ignorant in charge of the whole country. How the fuck did this cretin scrape a PPE? I'm not so epically stupid as this one and belive me, I am thick. Its fucking galling to have a FUNCTIONAL IDIOT running the show. Enough to make one wish to have Mandy back. Thats not an invite mandy, please stay fuck away from power politics, you vile creature.


 
I'm glad you added that. I was just about to PM you saying "FFS stop summoning the Dark One!"!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

abstract1 said:


> There has to be - it's completely unworkable within the current legislative framework: soundbite rhetoric with no critical thinking applied.....


 
So, like a lot of the stuff by themselves and their predecessors that's already made it onto the statute books, then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I guess what this proposal amounts to is one part of a strategy to shift the narrative to the right. FridgeMagnet has hit the nail on the head, I reckon. Hopefully it will backfire and people will just get sick of this lot in power.


 
How much further right can the narrative be shifted? We're already in semi-crypto-fascist territory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Fucking ridiculous.
> 
> I'm surprised more of a fuss wasn't made about the spare room tax - It seemed to slip through with very little opposition. IMO it's far more pernicious than any of the welfare to work stuff.


 
It's also going to be nigh-on unworkable in practice to actually gather and collate a lot of the data. You can't rely on the electoral roll, for example, or the census forms.



> I hope Grant Shapps gets shagged up the arse by a robot Ken Barlow with a cheese grater for a cock.


 
He's a Tory. That'd give him a raging hard-on.

Perhaps if we coated one of those rounded concrete bollards with naga chilli pulp then made him sit naked on it, with the bollard slowly piercing him over the course of several days, slowly rending his innards as the chilli ate away at his vitals...

Damn, now I've got a hard-on!


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> gap's closing though.


 
Down to 58% against  - go on, vote


----------



## Quartz (Jun 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Then, if you've got two braincells to rub together, you can go to Oxbridge, and see yourself being intellectually outstripped by people who've been to state schools.


 
Cameron got a First Class degree, though, didn't he? They don't just hand those out with the rations. Cameron's got - or had - the brains, but he lacks the breadth of experience to properly apply them to his chosen career. His experience of the poor was probably limited to the College Porters. Oddly, I reckon he really does want people to succeed; after all, people in work pay more taxes. But what he doesn't understand is that there needs to be a decent safety net, help for those who can't work, and decent help to get people started or restarted. He had help from his family, but most families can't muster the help he had. He'd change his tune soon enough if he and his family lost all their money.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 24, 2012)

Fucking BBC has just headlined this saying something about Cameron's speech being 'part of a new welfare crackdown'. Welfare crackdown? FFS


----------



## Raminta (Jun 24, 2012)

Tories giving trouble life for working class.  I am surprise myself we do complaining about cuts on the Internet, can we get something probably not. More we sit quite more Tories will bully workers. Soon we will work for free. Is time for some big general strikes.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 24, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Fucking BBC has just headlined this saying something about Cameron's speech being 'part of a new welfare crackdown'. Welfare crackdown? FFS


 
It's a fucking joke.  I don't even know where to begin with how stupid this is.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 24, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> It's a fucking joke. I don't even know where to begin with how stupid this is.


 
Some other bloody Tory, I was in too much of a red mist to see who it was, was rabbiting on about how wrong it was that people could go through school and leave 'straight into the world of benefits'. Yes! It IS wrong you dick! But not for the reasons you think it is!


----------



## Raminta (Jun 24, 2012)

Cracdown fucking Politicians they got everything for free food, travel, housing.  Are we forgot MPS claiming for everything.  I think politicians living in communist society everything providing for them for free.  So fuck them I hate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Cameron got a First Class degree, though, didn't he? They don't just hand those out with the rations. Cameron's got - or had - the brains, but he lacks the breadth of experience to properly apply them to his chosen career. His experience of the poor was probably limited to the College Porters. Oddly, I reckon he really does want people to succeed; after all, people in work pay more taxes. But what he doesn't understand is that there needs to be a decent safety net, help for those who can't work, and decent help to get people started or restarted. He had help from his family, but most families can't muster the help he had. He'd change his tune soon enough if he and his family lost all their money.


 

no they don't hand them out free with weetabix. You have to buy them. And they do.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 24, 2012)

What an apocalyptically shit idea.  Who's going to go around checking that under 25s have somewhere safe and welcoming to go?  Either this is incredibly badly thought through or it's an excuse to line the pockets of another private company.  Or both.  Double whammy.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 24, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Cameron got a First Class degree, though, didn't he? They don't just hand those out with the rations. Cameron's got - or had - the brains, but he lacks the breadth of experience to properly apply them to his chosen career. His experience of the poor was probably limited to the College Porters. Oddly, I reckon he really does want people to succeed; after all, people in work pay more taxes. But what he doesn't understand is that there needs to be a decent safety net, help for those who can't work, and decent help to get people started or restarted. He had help from his family, but most families can't muster the help he had. He'd change his tune soon enough if he and his family lost all their money.


This is precisely the sort of liberal critique that I was talking about. It's _not_ a safety net or help for those who can't work. And no he doesn't want people to succeed. He's not an ignorant but well-meaning rich kid.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 24, 2012)

He wants to live in the 1950s, when everyone had decent values, and kids still went up chimneys without complaining. Or something like that. And nobody ever beat their wives or their children, and Britain was a golden land of hard work and family values.

I think that's the point in the debate we've arrived at.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 24, 2012)

Actually, I do think there's a massive nostalgia for the 1950s, cos (I think) it was a time of massive social mobility, and I think the tories somehow think that if we can just return to those conditions, we could do that again.  And that's not true, in my view.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 24, 2012)

8115 said:


> He wants to live in the 1950s, when everyone had decent values, and kids still went up chimneys without complaining. Or something like that. And nobody ever beat their wives or their children, and Britain was a golden land of hard work and family values.
> 
> I think that's the point in the debate we've arrived at.


The 1950s during which one of my nans had to put all of her children into an orphanage for a few years because her husband decided to walk out on her.  Happy days I'm sure, but not for them.  Nor for anyone who wasn't at the top of society, and maybe not even them.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 24, 2012)

The way he's carrying on, I think he wants it to be the 1850s, then there'd be workhouses so no need for housing benefit for those workshy oiks in the working class, and everyone would know their place.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 24, 2012)

laptop said:


> Also:
> 
> _1987: Born_
> _1992: Went to school_
> ...


 
omg, this is my life *cries*

My brother came home this week. We had a big discussion (i.e. argument) because he claimed that there are many people on benefits because they don't want to work, and this amount is significant enough that they are partly responsible for the economic situation that the UK faces. That was his argument, fuelled by the mainstream media. I seriously considered disowning him


----------



## 8115 (Jun 24, 2012)

Lets just say I don't think he's a fan of subtlety.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 24, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> The divorce rate might not be as high if they lived together first, then our society might not be so broken!!


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This is precisely the sort of liberal critique that I was talking about. It's _not_ a safety net or help for those who can't work.


 
You've misunderstood me. I'm saying that it needs to be a safety net and a help. As you say, it isn't. And I don't think that Cameron understands that. He's never been there.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

These bastards are dismantling the welfare state brick by brick.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/328701/Curbs-to-stop-spongers-having-more-children-

I am getting actually scared now.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> no they don't hand them out free with weetabix. You have to buy them. And they do.


 
My brother was at Oxford, got a scholarship there, did his Ph.D. there. He has never reported anything like that. Indeed, the rich duffers get 'Gentlemen's 4ths'.


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> These bastards are dismantling the welfare state brick by brick.
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/328701/Curbs-to-stop-spongers-having-more-children-
> 
> I am getting actually scared now.


 
A cap on child benefit is sensible

And anyone who doesn't think housing benefit is a problem is living in cloud cuckoo land


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> A cap on child benefit is sensible
> 
> And anyone who doesn't think housing benefit is a problem is living in cloud cuckoo land


 
1) fuck off
2) fuck off.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> A cap on child benefit is sensible
> 
> And anyone who doesn't think housing benefit is a problem is living in cloud cuckoo land


 

go on then, i'll bite......

when 80% of those receiving housing benefit are working, how is it a 'problem' ?

what do you suggest those who have no family support do ? live feral in the woods


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

great so people like my mate will be forced to stay with violent boyfriends/girlfriends in order to not be made homeless, nice one cameron, yeah really good one that. you fucking posh little cunt


----------



## kittyP (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:
			
		

> 1) fuck off
> 2) fuck off.



Oh and.... 
7) fuck off




Ooh crumbs not you weeps obs


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 25, 2012)

Have kids when you can afford them - like most of us do

I didnt say stop child benefit - I said it's a problem - it's huge in this country


----------



## southside (Jun 25, 2012)

The Tories are starting to worry me, especially Dave.  Is he really that fucking dumb.


----------



## southside (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Have kids when you can afford them - like most of us do
> 
> I didnt say stop child benefit - I said it's a problem - it's huge in this country


What sort of cunt are you?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> A cap on child benefit is sensible
> 
> And anyone who doesn't think housing benefit is a problem is living in cloud cuckoo land


How do you work that out?
Would you rather have the one-child policy that China has instead, perhaps?

Housing benefit, DLA and JSA are not the problem, the runaway banks, huge debt and lack of jobs ARE!!!!

Oh yes, and FUCK OFF!!!


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> go on then, i'll bite......
> 
> when 80% of those receiving housing benefit are working, how is it a 'problem' ?
> 
> what do you suggest those who have no family support do ? live feral in the woods


 
let them stay with somebody who is knocking them about. they're probably asking for it.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Have kids when you can afford them - like most of us do
> 
> I didnt say stop child benefit - I said it's a problem - it's huge in this country


Because fertility can be controlled with a snap of the fingers, right? 

If you're that bothered about child benefit costs, put an upper salary limit on when who can claim it - you can bet Cameron claims it for his 3 children. He bloody doesn't need it.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Have kids when you can afford them - like most of us do
> 
> I didnt say stop child benefit - I said it's a problem - it's huge in this country


 
what's that got to do with housing benefit ?


----------



## kittyP (Jun 25, 2012)

mentalchik said:
			
		

> go on then, i'll bite......
> 
> when 80% of those receiving housing benefit are working, how is it a 'problem' ?
> 
> what do you suggest those who have no family support do ? live feral in the woods



Part of me would like to live feral in the woods but that really has nothing to do with this, I just felt sharing


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Have kids when you can afford them - like most of us do
> 
> I didnt say stop child benefit - I said it's a problem - it's huge in this country


Huge in comparison to what?

What if I can afford kids and then my situation changes?


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 25, 2012)

Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.

It's nice being a net taker, I guess. 

And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Huge in comparison to what?
> 
> What if I can afford kids and then my situation changes?


 
Well you should have foreseen that obviously. Now choose which two of your kids you send to the workhouse.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:
			
		

> Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.
> 
> It's nice being a net taker, I guess.
> 
> And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.



I have controlled my fertility and never claimed benefits.... 
You're still talking horse shit though!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.
> 
> It's nice being a net taker, I guess.
> 
> And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.


Life is very easy to plan and predict. It's not like anyone at all has unexpectedly had a change of financial circumstances in the last few years, right?


----------



## southside (Jun 25, 2012)

kittyP said:


> Part of me would like to live feral in the woods but that really has nothing to do with this, I just felt sharing


 
I'd like to live in the woods, I think it's our natural habitat.  There really is too much concrete around for my liking and we've only built on 10% of the land here which is crazy considering we all need to come from affluent rich families and have the best education money can buy .

The people who control us haven't done enough at any level yet they are hell bent on taking the very little they do provide away, the cunts want burning imo.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.
> 
> It's nice being a net taker, I guess.
> 
> And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.


Fertility is not easy to control, you muppet, many people with fertility issues show that to be wrong. Not everyone can have kids at the drop of a hat. 

And for people on here 'loving' their benefits, you couldn't be more wrong or more ignorant. People claim benefits for such fripperies as a roof over their head, food on the table and heat/light, because they have to not because they want to.

I hope you find out what they have to go through, maybe you'll change your tune then.


----------



## southside (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.
> 
> It's nice being a net taker, I guess.
> 
> And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.


 
I'm in a very good position at the moment and I'm the wrong side of 40 however what DC is proposing is an unworkable cunts trick.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

this article says 'lone parents with three or more children'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/cameron-tories-slash-benefits




			
				shithead little Toryboy fuck said:
			
		

> There are more than 150,000 people who have been claiming income support for over a year who have three or more children


 
To get Income Support and not JSA you have to have a child under 5. Because it's not unreasonable to find it difficult or impossible to find paid work that will fit round young children. This is single parents we're talking about, does he think we had these fucking children all by ourselves? Deliberately, like? I was on Income Support when all three of my kids were under five. I didn't have a lot of choice. This is making me really really angry. And scared.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.
> 
> It's nice being a net taker, I guess.
> 
> And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.


 
Any chance you might answer the question about housing benefit eh?


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 25, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Any chance you might answer the question about housing benefit eh?


 
It's a problem and needs to be cut

I have no solution other than it has to be addressed


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 25, 2012)

The thing these fucking morons don't get is that while they're off mithering about people living off the pittance that is benefits, surviving under an economic system that would still have unemployment even if we were all full-on Stakhanovite work addicts, the massively wealthy don't even pay a fraction of the taxes useful idiots like him pay, whilst siphoning off billions of pounds from the public purse either through the bailout of their costly mistakes or through their colonisation and dismantling of the public services we all depend on.

And in their imagination, they're daft enough to think that what gets taken off the unemployed young person or the single mum will end up back in their pocket and not in another bailout, a nuclear submarine or a tax rebate for a billionaire.


----------



## southside (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> this article says 'lone parents with three or more children'
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/cameron-tories-slash-benefits
> 
> ...


 
I doubt anything will come of this tbf, it's disco boy sucking off back benchers with utopian wet dreams.  It's a pile of old shite and isn't worth the bother.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> this article says 'lone parents with three or more children'
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/cameron-tories-slash-benefits
> 
> ...


I think he's having a rant - there's no way this will work in practice. The economy simply cannot sustain more cuts on top of what is already going through. It just won't work.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> It's a problem and needs to be cut
> 
> I have no solution other than it has to be addressed


 
Well, if it wasn't paid to private landlord wankers it would be less of a problem. If council housing wasn't flogged off reducing the money going into council housing. If councils were allowed to build more social housing it wouldn'ty be the 'problem' you claim. However, you'#re lacking as usual with facts so why let that bother you?!


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

they don't give a fuck about the economy. they see an opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do. they know that capitalism is going into meltdown and they basically want to take the money and run. 

imo


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> It's a problem and needs to be cut
> 
> I have no solution other than it has to be addressed


 
why is it a 'problem' ?

as has been said 80% of those receiving it are in work...............are you proposing to make people homeless ?


----------



## kittyP (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:
			
		

> It's a problem and needs to be cut
> 
> I have no solution other than it has to be addressed



So you think housing benefit is 'the' problem with the economy? 
You can't think of anything else that has caused a problem or any other way to address the problems at hand?


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.
> 
> It's nice being a net taker, I guess.
> 
> And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.


 
when you say 'benefits' what are you actually talking about ?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> It's a problem and needs to be cut
> 
> I have no solution other than it has to be addressed


How about you answer some of the solutions being proposed, then? How would you do it if you think it needs to be cut? One child per family? Cap so the rich don't get Child Benefit?

Or just throw all the poor in the nearest workhouse or down the nearest mine?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

if this was about the economy they would be doing some warmed up keynseian bollocks combined with savage cuts in certain areas, not so much in others. they don't. this is pure fucking asset stripping. and when it's done they will fuck off to monaco or some shit, or that's the plan. i reckon.

apologies, slightly pissed and angry, i'm probably talking bollocks and going to be corrected on it, but im too angry/tired to really think clearly tonight and should really go to bed


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Fucking BBC has just headlined this saying something about Cameron's speech being 'part of a new welfare crackdown'. Welfare crackdown? FFS


 
the BBC are loving this, they have been cheerleaders for welfare reform since Blair first advocated it, I do wonder if some senior executives have a bee in their bonnet about it...


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> How about you answer some of the solutions being proposed, then? How would you do it if you think it needs to be cut? One child per family? Cap so the rich don't get Child Benefit?


 
yes and what about those already receiving these 'benefits' are they to be stripped of it and how do you expect that to pan out then ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> *Have kids when you can afford them - like most of us do*


 
or never have them at all since your wife left you before you could inflict your seed upon her womb and spend the rest of your life cry-wanking into the stuck-together remnants of your marriage certificate while wearing the only pair of knickers she forgot to take with her on your head. You sad fucking excuse


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 25, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> or never have them at all since your wife left you before you could inflict your seed upon her womb and spend the rest of your life cry-wanking into the stuck-together remnants of your marriage certificate while wearing the only pair of knickers she forgot to take with her on your head. You sad fucking excuse


 
Keep sweeping the treets, Trigger.


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> How about you answer some of the solutions being proposed, then? How would you do it if you think it needs to be cut? One child per family? Cap so the rich don't get Child Benefit?
> 
> Or just throw all the poor in the nearest workhouse or down the nearest mine?


 
I think child benefit should be universal

However, I think that child benefit for any more than 3 or 4 kids is crazy.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> if this was about the economy they would be doing some warmed up keynseian bollocks combined with savage cuts in certain areas, not so much in others. they don't. this is pure fucking asset stripping. and when it's done they will fuck off to monaco or some shit, or that's the plan. i reckon.
> 
> apologies, slightly pissed and angry, i'm probably talking bollocks and going to be corrected on it, but im too angry/tired to really think clearly tonight and should really go to bed


Yep. They have to know that none of this shit is going to reduce unemployment or improve the economy, they're not thick, just malevolent.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.
> 
> It's nice being a net taker, I guess.
> 
> And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.


 

So name names then.  Don't be vague. Don't be coy. You read the boards.  You've read people's stories, presumably, and with that knowledge in hand consider it right and true that they have their benefits cut.  

Let's see you state nice and clearly which posters you think should have their benefits taken completely away from them and who  should have waited until they could afford kids. 

Don't hold back. 

Let's hear them. I for one am very interested to know exactly who on here you think deserves to live on the street with their children, rather than just a vague reference to people loving their benefits. 





Just looked at the Guardian link. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/cameron-tories-slash-benefits?fb=optOut




> He will also single out lone parents of multiple children as a focus for cuts and insist the welfare system should be a safety net available only to those with *no independent means of support*. The reforms could see a range of benefits targeted, including income support payments.


 
Then there should be no change.  Fucks sake. Does he think current claimants all have a trust fund they can cash in or a 2nd home they can rent out.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

Have Uk Uncut said anything about this seeing as it will profoundly affect their demographic?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> they don't give a fuck about the economy. they see an opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do. they know that capitalism is going into meltdown and they basically want to take the money and run.
> 
> imo


 
They're basically treating the country like it's a bankrupt corporation and they're the assett strippers. Them and their families won't be affected by what they're doing, so why should they care?

Also, I have a feeling that the only reason they're now picking on "Welfare Culture" is because they've been outflanked on the right by the Labour party when it comes to scapegoating immigrants, which I suspect was probably their first preferred choice.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2012)

keep pissing away your existence not believing or feeling anything you tawdry shitbox of a human being. You know the world has gone to shit when the most passionate defense of right wing ideology comes from such a maggot as gunner, do me a fucking favour.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> I think child benefit should be universal
> 
> However, I think that child benefit for any more than 3 or 4 kids is crazy.


 

any chance you could answer the previous questions ?


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

Btw, there really is a constituency to challenge these reforms now, when some of us were fighting N/L's initial WRA there was hardly any interest, on CIF now welfare articles get the most hits and generate the most anger, yes, its CIF but it is imo a decent barometer...


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> I think child benefit should be universal
> 
> However, I think that child benefit for any more than 3 or 4 kids is crazy.


 
why? 

should a child be made to suffer because they came from a large family? child benefit isn't meant to be for the parents you know


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Cameron got a First Class degree, though, didn't he? They don't just hand those out with the rations. Cameron's got - or had - the brains, but he lacks the breadth of experience to properly apply them to his chosen career. His experience of the poor was probably limited to the College Porters. Oddly, I reckon he really does want people to succeed; after all, people in work pay more taxes. But what he doesn't understand is that there needs to be a decent safety net, help for those who can't work, and decent help to get people started or restarted. He had help from his family, but most families can't muster the help he had. He'd change his tune soon enough if he and his family lost all their money.


 
Which makes him totally thick, at best. More likely just a MASSIVE CUNT.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> They're basically treating the country like it's a bankrupt corporation and they're the assett strippers. Them and their families won't be affected by what they're doing, so why should they care?
> 
> Also, I have a feeling that the only reason they're now picking on "Welfare Culture" is because they've been outflanked on the right by the Labour party when it comes to scapegoating immigrants, which I suspect was probably their first preferred choice.


 
actually its because they think they have the public onside, a L/P which up to now has tried to flank the tories from the right on welfare, but also its a huge pot of money they can raid with again and again with upto now, little political consequences and in the face of basically being impotent to resist global financial pressures, a supply side measure they can actually do something about.

thats how they see it anyway, imo...


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> A cap on child benefit is sensible
> 
> And anyone who doesn't think housing benefit is a problem is living in cloud cuckoo land


 
You _fucking_ twat.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Have kids when you can afford them - like most of us do


 
What if you had your kids when you had money and then lost your job or had an accident/illness and were no longer able to work?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 25, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What if you had your kids when you had money and then lost your job or had an accident/illness and were no longer able to work?


 
This is not possible, Minnie. There are two options. You either have kids when you can afford them within a marriage and nothing untoward ever happens ever or you are a feckless scrounger in it for the love of the high life benefits afford you and lols at the expense of the poor downtrodden high earning tax payers. One or the other. No middle ground. No greyscale. Stop trying to muddy the waters, minnie.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> This is not possible, Minnie. There are two options. You either have kids when you can afford them within a marriage and nothing untoward ever happens ever or you are a feckless scrounger in it for the love of the high life benefits afford you and lols at the expense of the poor downtrodden high earning tax payers. One or the other. No middle ground. No greyscale. Stop trying to muddy the waters, minnie.


 
I apologise, and I apologise to gunner if I accidentally made him think grey instead of black or white


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> why?
> 
> should a child be made to suffer because they came from a large family? child benefit isn't meant to be for the parents you know


 
No, no.  Child poverty is self-inflicted remember.  The children bring it on themselves.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm not mad keen on these alternative scenarios, tbf (although it's all relevant, tbf)...but what if you DO have them when you're poor, ffs
By ACCIDENT, too 

Fucking idiot


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> I think child benefit should be universal
> 
> However, I think that child benefit for any more than 3 or 4 kids is crazy.


Why? Why put a limit on the number of children benefit can be paid for? 

It's not exactly a fortune (figures per week):

Eldest or only child​ 
£20.30​
Additional children - per child​ 
£13.40​ 
Here's the 2010 figures, broken down by benefit type and as a % of the overall spend:
GB expenditure and claimant figures for all benefits and tax credits, 2009–10
*Expenditure (£m)                                                                         % of total expenditure                               Claimants*
_Benefits for families with children_
Child benefit (including former one-parent benefit) 11,927.5            6.33%                                                         7,769,880
Child Trust Fund                                                    306.3                0.16%                                                         Not available
Child tax credit                                                    19,000               10.09%                                                       5,775,000
Statutory maternity pay                                          1,776               0.94%                                                         Not available
Maternity allowance                                                  345               0.18%                                                         52,200
Guardian’s allowance                                                 1.9               0.00%                                                         Not available
Education maintenance allowance                            624.6               0.31%                                                         Over 670,000
Health in Pregnancy Grant                                       133.6
*Total benefits for families with children              34,114.9           18.11%*
_Benefits for unemployed people_
Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance                       3,601                  1.91%                                                       1,187,600 
Contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and 
unemployment benefit                                            1,089                  0.58%                                                       292,400 
New Deal programmes (Young People and 25-Plus)        115                  0.06%                                                       120,620
Job grant                                                                   48                  0.03%                                                        Not available
*Total benefits for unemployed people                   4,853                  2.58%*
_Benefits for people on low incomes_
Income Support                                                     8,344                   4.43%                                                        1,884,960
Working tax credit                                                 7,800                  4.14%                                                         2,457,900
Housing benefit                                                    19,978                  10.6%                                                         4,765,730 
Discretionary housing payments                                  20                    0.01%                                                        Not available
Council tax benefit                                                 4,698                  2.49%                                                         5,788,760 
Social Fund payments                                              742.5                  0.39%                                                         16,067,400 awards
*Total benefits for people on low incomes         41,583.5                 22.08%*
_Benefits for elderly people_
Basic state pension (contributory)                           53,653                  28.55%                                                        12,490,820
Basic state pension (non-contributory)                       49                       0.03%                                                         28,070
Additional state pension                                          13,196                  7.01%                                                         Not available
Retirement pension – total                                       66,898                35.52%
Pension Credit                                                         8,229                  4.37%                                                         2,735,160
Winter Fuel Payments                                               2,735                  1.45%                                                        12,625,000
Concessionary television licences                               549                     0.29%                                                         4,128,000
*Total benefits for elderly people                          78,411                 41.64%*
_Benefits for sick and disabled people_
Statutory sick pay                                                      64                      0.03%                                                        Not available
Incapacity Benefit                                                     6,111                  3.24%                                                        1,940,300
Employment and support allowance                            1,268                   0.67%                                                           479,430
Severe disablement allowance                                    907                     0.48%                                                           232,300
Disability living allowance                                        11,464                   6.09%                                                        3,137,730
Attendance allowance                                                5,108                   2.71%                                                        1,614,170
Carer’s allowance                                                      1,499                   0.80%                                                           530,890
Independent Living Funds                                              339                   0.18%                                                             20,907
Motability Grants                                                        17.4                    0.01%                                                         Not Available
Industrial injuries benefits                                            808                     0.43%                                                           324,120
War pensions                                                             979.641                0.52%                                                           180,400
*Total benefits for sick and disabled people           28,565.08              15.17%*
_Benefits for bereaved people_
Widows’ and bereavement benefits                             649                     0.34%                                                             62,410
Industrial death benefit                                                 36                     0.02%                                                             79,000
*Total benefits for bereaved people                           685                     0.36%*
_Other benefits_
Christmas bonus                                                        153                      0.08%                                                           Not available
*TOTAL                                                                  188,365.5                100%*

Source: Institute of Fiscal Studies http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf

Child benefits/tax credits ~ 16% total, Housing benefit ~ 11%


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'm not mad keen on these alternative scenarios, tbf (although it's all relevant, tbf)...but what if you DO have them when you're poor, ffs
> By ACCIDENT, too
> 
> Fucking idiot


 
Irrelevant sheo as gunner probably thinks the poor should be sterilised anyway


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

Argh all the formatting fucked up. 

Basically, housing benefit and all the child benefit/tax credit are still only about a quarter of the whole benefits bill. So putting a cap or restrictions on these claimants probably wouldn't make a massive difference to the overall bill.

Anything to say now, gunneradt?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Irrelevant sheo as gunner probably thinks the poor should be sterilised anyway


The feckless poor, Minnie, don't forget the feckless part.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 25, 2012)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'm not mad keen on these alternative scenarios, tbf (although it's all relevant, tbf)...but what if you DO have them when you're poor, ffs
> By ACCIDENT, too
> 
> Fucking idiot


 
No mistakes allowed!  Being poor is not allowed! 

If only everyone had the good sense to be a CEO of a multi-national company then we wouldn't have these problems.

Also I am going to cure poverty by making it illegal. First transgression a fine and for second transgression a prison sentence.  someone else can cure the prison problem. I've done my bit and I'm going home for tea. 


I know a good cure for seasickness too if you're interested.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> The feckless poor, Minnie, don't forget the feckless part.


 
I blame the late hour.   Us feckless poor sit up watching our 32 inch tvs instead of sleeping


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 25, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> go on then, i'll bite......
> 
> when 80% of those receiving housing benefit are working, how is it a 'problem' ?
> 
> what do you suggest those who have no family support do ? live feral in the woods


Oi, feralist!



I had to live feral in the woods and it didn't do me no harm, in fact I still do sometimes. 



gunneradt said:


> Well, Im well aware that there are many on here that love their benefits.
> 
> It's nice being a net taker, I guess.
> 
> And yes, fertility is easy to control if you have a little responsibility.


It's the 'net takers' that are running the whole shower, that's why people are claiming HB when they are working - because they are getting shafted by the system as it exists. 

There is nothing nice about being stuck on benefits, I hope with all my heart that someday it happens to you so you can get a bit of perspective.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> No mistakes allowed!  Being poor is not allowed!
> 
> If only everyone had the good sense to be a CEO of a multi-national company then we wouldn't have these problems.
> 
> ...


 
Prisoners are a drain on society so we're better off hanging them all don't you think?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 25, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Prisoners are a drain on society so we're better off hanging them all don't you think?


 
the one thing those crazy anarchists (and Swift, obvs, before someone points it out) got right was eating babies.  When poor people are too stupid and feckless not to have babies they should be made to eat them then we wouldn't have to pay them all the money for food either.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

Here's a pie chart:


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

That's £millions spent, by the way, in each category.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

This is just fucking awful.  It makes me cry, genuinely it does.  What the fuck do we do.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> That's £millions spent, by the way, in each category.


Clearly something needs to be done about the elderly and people on low incomes, perhaps some sort of final solution will present itself...


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> This is just fucking awful. It makes me cry, genuinely it does. What the fuck do we do.


We get mad.

See that winter of discontent back in the seventies? Heading that way I reckon.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> We get mad.
> 
> See that winter of discontent back in the seventies? Heading that way I reckon.


 
Do you think?  I hope something happens, how much more will people take.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> We get mad.
> 
> See that winter of discontent back in the seventies? Heading that way I reckon.


If they cut HB it will turn into a winter of discount tent as well for a lot of people.

*gets coat*


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> We get mad.
> 
> See that winter of discontent back in the seventies? Heading that way I reckon.


 
Yeah, but that'll be good for the poor.  Think of all the electricity we'll save through power cuts  

We might accidentally burn our houses down trying to keep them warm, but that's ok, the Government will pay for new houses won't they


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 25, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yeah, but that'll be good for the poor. Think of all the electricity we'll save through power cuts
> 
> We might accidentally burn our houses down trying to keep them warm, but that's ok, the Government will pay for new houses won't they


I hear Tories are made of wood...


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 25, 2012)

Of course this would mean Tories are possibly a type of duck.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 25, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Of course this would mean Tories are possibly a type of duck.


 
So they float?

Burn em. Burn em!!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2012)

tbh I don't care how many are in receipt of HB while working. To my mind that isn't the damn point. If someone needs a gaff to stop at then they should have it, there isn't a fucking housing shortage, there is simply insufficient leash on landlords. How the fuck do people live with themselves owning property left empty while others sleep rough? Its arrogance, greed and iniquity.

and housing benefit paying for private mortgages is just mental. a place to stash your belongings and rest your head shouldn't be a costly privilege, its a basic right. Does society owe everyone a living- yes it fucking does, at least in terms of providing opportunity to earn- that aside, food in your belly and a roof isn't asking for a room at the Taj.


----------



## southside (Jun 25, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> This is just fucking awful. It makes me cry, genuinely it does. What the fuck do we do.


 
We burn them with fire.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 25, 2012)

At least the Tories are coming clean about their plans for the country if they win the next election. Now people will have a better idea about what they are voting for. Should be an interesting election in 2015.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

southside said:


> We burn them with fire.


Fire's so predictable


----------



## Badgers (Jun 25, 2012)

southside said:
			
		

> We burn them with fire.



Fuel benefits have been cut so fire is out of the question


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

If we can't have fire why not try water?





Badgers said:


> Fuel benefits have been cut so fire is out of the question


----------



## southside (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> If we can't have fire why not try water?


 
Ducking stool?






Works for me.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> tbh I don't care how many are in receipt of HB while working. To my mind that isn't the damn point. If someone needs a gaff to stop at then they should have it, there isn't a fucking housing shortage, there is simply insufficient leash on landlords. How the fuck do people live with themselves owning property left empty while others sleep rough? Its arrogance, greed and iniquity.
> 
> and housing benefit paying for private mortgages is just mental. a place to stash your belongings and rest your head shouldn't be a costly privilege, its a basic right. Does society owe everyone a living- yes it fucking does, at least in terms of providing opportunity to earn- that aside, food in your belly and a roof isn't asking for a room at the Taj.


 
it's the whole "why should the state pay for people to have kids" that gets me. as if being a poor kid from a large family means that your life is worthless. if your parents are feckless (hate that word but you know what i mean) and dont give a fuck about you surely that's an extra reason for the state to step in and help you out with money and whatever it is. why the fuck should the kids be made to suffer for their parents choices even if you accept that basic right-wing premise 

you cunts, you fucking cunts


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> Actually, I do think there's a massive nostalgia for the 1950s, cos (I think) it was a time of massive social mobility, and I think the tories somehow think that if we can just return to those conditions, we could do that again. And that's not true, in my view.


The ever-idiotic and racist (Fr)Ed West asks "What was so bad about the 1950s"? My question to him would be "Why are you so hung up on nostalgia? It's not even real".



> But what do people have against the 1950s? It’s a strange insult to use because, not only were the 1950s an incredibly peaceful, ordered timebut they were also, by today’s standards, very equal (and getting more so).
> It was a great time to be poor – the first time in history when a working-class Englishman could afford to support a wife and two kids, as well as having enough to save, afford a holiday and, often even run a car. Today, especially when housing costs are considered, that is very difficult.
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100167025/what-was-so-bad-about-the-1950s/


 
The man is a total cock.


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm still livid that welfare is being cut. Any of it.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

AAARGH CUNTS CUNTS CUNTS

Couldn't sleep last night for fretting about this. Not just in relation to myself.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 25, 2012)

pointless expecting TUC to do anything about it despite working folk claiming it. cant afford to leave home, folks cant afford you to stay, cant afford uni, fuck all jobs, those few contested by dozens. no political representation either. any thoughts on this?
http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0909/uwu1.html


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> any thoughts on this?


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Here's a pie chart:
> View attachment 20477


 
Do you not need to subtract the contributory state pension from the benefits for elderly people? It's not exactly a benefit, because you don't get it if you didn't pay for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Really important that we try to get to why this is happening and why it's happening _now_, beyond them being arseholes that is.

On the _immediate_ level it's the tories trying to firm up their traditional socially conservative pull-your-own-socks up brigade supporters in the run-up to the next general election. Their bedrock, never changing will always vote tory support, has been estimated at around 28%. Their polls have been showing their national support hovering around this figure for some months now. They need at least 40% with a 10% lead on labour to win a general election. There is clearly some panicking going on and this is a move to shore up that old-school support and try to pick up UKIP and traditional labour voters who think the same way - based on polling of the popularity of these sorts of measures.

On the deeper level it's part of the post-79 attack on the acceptance, the common sense of the state and capital paying for _social reproduction_ (that is education to produce technologically competent labour-power, healthcare to produce labour-power capable of being put to use, housing to produce labour-power capable of recuperating before being put back to use and to raise the next generation of labour-power in and so on) and to shift the burden of this not onto private society as a collective whole, but on private citizens _as individuals_, rendering any struggle to defend or extend these traditional understandings of how society works and what its duties are atomised unconnected struggles. This means that the state can further cut its spending on social reproduction and demand less taxes off capital in brief.

Now, the connection between these two levels is going to be the ideological construction of a_ ‘respectable culture’_. An open turn to hard-line insistence on adherence to seemingly natural British values (hard work, personal responsibility, respect for private property, looking after oneself, paying your own way in life etc) A ‘muscular liberalism’ designed to aggravate internal differences and foster political weakness. Now, i know i've waffled on a bit here, but i do think its really important to see the connection between the two levels here - they're not just doing this because they have no idea what its like for the majority of the population (though this is undoubtedly effecting the speed and depth at which they're currently operating) but as part of a long term global strategy on the part of capital and the state designed to totally reconfigure the way the overall system will (or will not) operate.


----------



## southside (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


>


 
The flag's wrong but apart from that it's flawless.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 25, 2012)

the flag in the middle being red and black is TOTALLY right! and great post butchers. they aint gonna get that lead very easily when vast amounts of disenfranchised under 25s have just been wiped out. not that theyd vote for em anyway. cameron is so fecken right wing and brazen.


----------



## Mephitic (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> I think child benefit should be universal
> 
> However, I think that child benefit for any more than 34 kids is crazy.


 
Fixed.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Do you not need to subtract the contributory state pension from the benefits for elderly people? It's not exactly a benefit, because you don't get it if you didn't pay for it.


And no other benefit is contributions based?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

_



			I think child benefit should be universal
		
Click to expand...

_


> _However, I think that child benefit for any more than 344 kids is crazy._




_fixed again. _


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

He's too gutless to reply to this I see. Edit, that was supposed to be a quote of quimcunx demanding gunneradt name names.  at my phone


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 25, 2012)

no housing benefit = no one to fill the slums Cameron's traditional voters THE LANDLORDS own! He shoots himself in the foot yet again , not to mention more homeless, more mental problems , a load more shit for social services, health service etc

and given that Tory voters are horrible selfish cunts will they want their discarded offspring trying to get back in the family home?


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> And no other benefit is contributions based?


 
Fair point: from that list you should also exclude contribution-based JSA. But nothing comes anywhere close to the contributory pensions.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> no housing benefit = no one to fill the slums Cameron's traditional voters THE LANDLORDS own!


 
OTOH No housing benefit might mean a reduction in rents.



> He shoots himself in the foot yet again , not to mention more homeless, more mental problems , a load more shit for social services, health service etc


 
QFT. And don't forget increased local taxation as the local demand grows. But hey, that's not his problem, is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> OTOH No housing benefit might mean a reduction in rents.


 
It won't - and even if it did, that still  leaves the person getting no money at all now in a situation that you could fairly describe as fucked.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 25, 2012)

from daily mail (crivvens!): 'Stopping the £70-a-week dole money for the unemployed who refuse to try hard to find work or produce a CV. Forcing a hardcore of workshy claimants to do community work after two years on the dole – or lose all their benefits.'
this getting people to basically work for free is similar to the prisoners fiasco which he quietly backed out of the other week. there is also the risk that enlarged public works schemes will replace council workers.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 25, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> tbh I don't care how many are in receipt of HB while working. To my mind that isn't the damn point.


 
Actually it is an important point because it blows apart Camerons idea of benefit claimant v working person. There is a massive crossover which explodes a massive part of Camerons false, ie lying through his shit-eating grin, shiny fucking white teeth. It explodes the myth of claimant v working, it blows apart his claim and as such is very important. It's not the be all and end all but it is an important part of the reply to his lies.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Really important that we try to get to why this is happening and why it's happening _now_, beyond them being arseholes that is.
> 
> On the _immediate_ level it's the tories trying to firm up their traditional socially conservative pull-your-own-socks up brigade supporters in the run-up to the next general election. Their bedrock, never changing will always vote tory support, has been estimated at around 28%. Their polls have been showing their national support hovering around this figure for some months now. They need at least 40% with a 10% lead on labour to win a general election. There is clearly some panicking going on and this is a move to shore up that old-school support and try to pick up UKIP and traditional labour voters who think the same way - based on polling of the popularity of these sorts of measures.
> 
> ...


 

I've just read somewhere that the US hard right has long hated the welfare capitalism of Europe(socialism in their eyes) and wanted to bring it down, one could add while of course securing new markets for their services, eg private healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc...

btw, why is the media making so much of this speech by Cameron, its not his first on welfare and it won't be the last...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2012)

Most HB claimants under 25 are in work.

Cameron comes from an aristocratic culture of entitlement so probably doesn't know.

The claim is that this move will save a small number of billions, probably less given knock on effects of implementation.

The banks have a bigger feckless culture of entitlement by far - when their gambles screw up they stick their hands out for scores of billions in QE or bailouts. They always get it.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2012)

Butcher's - that last piece was excellent, but I couldnt help a little chuckle at the last point:


"part of a long term global strategy on the part of capital and the state designed to totally reconfigure the way the overall system will (or will not) operate."

You know what that could be taken as synonymous with? ​


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Butcher's - that last piece was excellent, but I couldnt help a little chuckle at the last point:
> 
> 
> 
> "part of a long term global strategy on the part of capital and the state designed to totally reconfigure the way the overall system will (or will not) operate."​​You know what that could be taken as synonymous with? ​


No it couldn't. There's nothing whatsoever comparable in what i posted with conspiracy theories of any shape or form - except to conspiracy theorists unused to rigorous thought - and rigourous thought that implicitly challenges their own weak explanations.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

'As an ex-cop, I can only say that this will drive more young people who live in inner city areas into the arms of the gangs who,despite what senior police and politicians say, control swathes of territory in those areas where poverty is prevalent. Gangs thrive where hopelessness exists and this announcement itself will build up the pressure of resentment. When it all explodes again, Dave 'We're all in this together' Cameron, his expense fiddling MP's and tax dodging millionaire supporters will once again hide behind the ‘old bill’ who now loathe Cameron and his government.
As a recently retired police officer I never thought I'd be making this sort of statement.'



from CIf, says it all really about the consequences...


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

Oh, and not a good day to launch the pro-union 'better together' campaign is it, Scotland is not joining in these assaults on the poorest...


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> The feckless poor, Minnie, don't forget the feckless part.



Where's the outcry demanding more fecks. Fecks for all! Everyone deserves a feck. We must all give a feck for the feckless.


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> btw, why is the media making so much of this speech by Cameron, its not his first on welfare and it won't be the last...


 
It does offer the chance of more news, in the shape of the Coalition splitting.

In fact I can see the Silly Season agenda being set.

Cameron: "No, look at the Olympics!"
Boris: "No, the Olympics are _miiine_!"
Everyone else: "Government falls on 7 September, yes?"


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

I wonder how they will rebrand the new workhouses?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

****call in or email alert**** You and Yours tomorrow (Tuesday 26th June) R4 12-1pm will be taking comments about the proposed HB changes.

Comments can also be left on the You and Yours page of the BBC website.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2012)

Why is the "culture of entitlement" of the working class condemned while the culture of entitlement of finance capital is assuaged with endless scores of billions?

One reason is probably that the latter threaten utter chaos if their demands are not met.

The former threaten chaos if they don't get their way, well we don't really threaten anything do we?

Would the overlord kleptocrats be so brutal and disgusting if they doubted their ability to get away with it?

Is part of the reason for this constant attack a willingness to accept it at some level?

ETA: Apologies - there is a threat on the cards. In a few months time there will be a march in london followed by a rally where Blue Ed and some union hacks will say the tories are really bad. I bet they are quaking in their boots.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

I love fleet street fox.

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2012/06/these-people.html


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Jun 25, 2012)

"80% of people claiming housing benefit are in work" - I've seen this figure quoted a few times on here & elsewhere, can anyone find me a link to back it up?

The figure doesn't change how I feel about this - it's inhumane to refuse people Housing Benefit whatever their age or situation, if they need it to make a home for themselves.

But I really do want to get a handle on how likely most people are to know someone who is in work & claiming - 865,000 (from the bottom link below) doesn't sound a lot  - how likely people are to believe it just doesn't happen to people like them.

All I can find is [http://www.crisis.org.uk/pressrelea...opeddling-myths-to-sell-housing-benefit-cuts] Crisis in 2010[/URL] saying that "More households who claim Local Housing Allowance are in low paid employment (*26%*) than unemployed (22%)". (presumably the other 52% of households are pensioners, sick or disabled, or with caring responsibility, and presumably some of these may be in employment - does the 80% include these people?)

And [http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tena...g-benefit-claimants-in-work/6521183.article]a report by The Building and Social Housing Foundation [/URL] which says that "93 per cent (279,000) [of NEW claimants between Jan 2010 & Dec 2011] were households where at least one adult was employed. Since November 2008, the proportion of housing benefit claimants in work has increased from 10 per cent to 17 per cent, while the overall number of in-work claimants has doubled from 430,000 to 865,000." which suggests *17%* of claimants are in work, with the figure increasing rapidly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> The way he's carrying on, *I think he wants it to be the 1850s,* then there'd be workhouses so no need for housing benefit for those workshy oiks in the working class, and everyone would know their place.


 
I do wish more people would get this.
This is exactly (in terms of welfare provision especially) what they want. People should (if they can stomach it) read some of the stuff Iain Duncan Smith co-authored at the misleadingly-named "Institute for Social Justice" if they need any further convincing on the matter.


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> I wonder how they will rebrand the new workhouses?


 
"Secure villages"? "Strategic hamlets"?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> ****call in or email alert**** You and Yours tomorrow (Tuesday 26th June) R4 12-1pm will be taking comments about the proposed HB changes.
> 
> Comments can also be left on the You and Yours page of the BBC website.


 
This is one reason of the thinking behind this kind of policy proposal. Even if the full policy doesn't come off this kind of kite-flying guarantees 24 - 48 hours of talking points, phone ins and up to maybe 5 days of print media commentary. It's a great way of keep the dialectics tilted towards one's own objectives. The media are far too lazy and compliant to do anything other than go along with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

laptop said:


> "Secure villages"? "Strategic hamlets"?


Sites of Class A fires.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I do wish more people would get this.
> This is exactly (in terms of welfare provision especially) what they want. People should (if they can stomach it) read some of the stuff Iain Duncan Smith co-authored at the misleadingly-named "Institute for Social Justice" if they need any further convincing on the matter.




"more than half the adults of working age living in social housing are out of work"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

kittyP said:


> Part of me would like to live feral in the woods but that really has nothing to do with this, I just felt sharing


 
What sort of woods, though? Woods near human habitation so you could snuggle in a bush while wistfully watching some suburban family eat their evening meal, or deep dark woods were you can run naked through the trees, catching dinner with your bare hands and having competitions with the bears as to who can leave the largest pile of poo for hunters to tread in?

I think we should be told.


----------



## gosub (Jun 25, 2012)

I thought it couldn't get any worse than Blair finding inspiration from 1984 but Cameron seems to have decided the Bucket family from Charlie and the chocolate factory are aspirational icons
Who does he think will vote for this shit? Kids themselves, parents, unlikely. Even property developers and home owners will dislike the effect of decreased demand.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

southside said:


> I doubt anything will come of this tbf, it's disco boy sucking off back benchers with utopian wet dreams. It's a pile of old shite and isn't worth the bother.


 
You're missing the point. This doesn't *have* to come to anything. It's already done its job of stirring up the ignorant and small-minded a little bit more against one group of people, to distract attention from the much larger crimes of another group of people.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> "more than half the adults of working age living in social housing are out of work"


If you take "out of work" as being a synonym for "economically inactive", that includes stay at home parents of small children, some foster parents (particularly those ones who are willing to take more challenging children and youngsters), anyone on sick leave, anyone on maternity leave, anyone on IB or ESA, and anyone spending 35 hours or more of every week looking after somebody else (but not as a job).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Well, if it wasn't paid to private landlord wankers it would be less of a problem. If council housing wasn't flogged off reducing the money going into council housing. If councils were allowed to build more social housing it wouldn'ty be the 'problem' you claim. However, you'#re lacking as usual with facts so why let that bother you?!


 
Fact is, even outwith housing ownership considerations, in terms of cost/benefit analysis, HB and all the other social welfare costs are not only affordable, but most of them have historically extracted a high amount of value from each pound, and part of the reason that HB costs have escalated (but are still "affordable" in terms of government spending despite what dolts and idiots like gunneradt might think) is the "progressive" loosening of constraints by our various neo-liberal governments. Oddly, gunners' ilk were all for this when it was them benefitting from it, but now it's only the banks cashing in, they whine like brats.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/jun/25/david-cameron-welfare-benefits-live

Looks like he has took Smiths whole lexicon of ideas and language and put them into one speech, he has also took the worse policies from around the globe while ignoring positive antipoverty strategies like those in Brazil, what a wanker...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> I think child benefit should be universal
> 
> However, I think that child benefit for any more than 3 or 4 kids is crazy.


 
So, you think it should be universal, but it shouldn't be _universal_?

Kill yourself.

Now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> The feckless poor, Minnie, don't forget the feckless part.


 
Not only sterilised, but feckless too?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Prisoners are a drain on society so we're better off hanging them all don't you think?


 
Careful, Minnie, you'll give Spymaster a hard-on.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

my grandma had a right wing tory rant about this the other night. i had a lot of trouble keeping a lid on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Shove her down the coal-stairs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Clearly something needs to be done about the elderly and people on low incomes, perhaps some sort of final solution will present itself...


 
Nah. You can't have a "final solution to the elderly problem", with the crumblies wearing grey triangle badges, *until* Cameron establishes a dictatorship, because the oldsters hold a higher proportion of the vote _per se_, and a higher proportion of the Tory vote _in toto_, so he'd be liquidating his own route to continued power, so he's going after the crips.
After he's seized dictatorial power, thouh, then he'll probably start using the "holiday villages" that were originally set up for "the disabled" to give the over-68s (hah! They shot themselves in the foot with THAT one!) a final weekend break.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 25, 2012)

More talk on various news channels today of "regionalising" benefits - i.e. cutting benefit levels for those not living in the south east


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

smmudge said:


> So they float?
> 
> Burn em. Burn em!!!


 
Burn the ducks as well. They're obviously familiars for the Tories!


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Shove her down the coal-stairs.


Much as I'm against the death penalty, let alone attempted murder, that almost sounds like a good idea, given the circumstances.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> my grandma had a right wing tory rant about this the other night. i had a lot of trouble keeping a lid on it.


Congrats on your self restraint. It's tragic when they go senile like that. 

Unless she was always so right wing, in which case there's no excuse for it.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> More talk on various news channels today of "regionalising" benefits - i.e. cutting benefit levels for those not living in the south east


Great logic that - even stop people moving to where they might almost be able to live on the meagre benefits they can still get.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

Cameron has been citing Germany as a country which has recently sucessfully brought in such changes to HB or similar, but keen CIF'ers have found out that it has been ruled unconstitutional by its main court and given Merkel one year to restructure it, why haven't paid journalists, inc the BBC picked up on that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> "more than half the adults of working age living in social housing are out of work"


 
Weasel words. People hear that, and they interpret it as "more than half of social housing households are out of work", and the pols *know* that's how people interpret it.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> ****call in or email alert**** You and Yours tomorrow (Tuesday 26th June) R4 12-1pm will be taking comments about the proposed HB changes.
> 
> Comments can also be left on the You and Yours page of the BBC website.


 
Thanks for that, I will leave a few choice words.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

'http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1fc548ce-ba39-11e1-aa8d-00144feabdc0.html'

Meanwhile A4E are sending claimants on NLP courses to inculcate the right attitudes to work, no different in effect to what the eastern bloc countries undertook,


----------



## agricola (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/jun/25/david-cameron-welfare-benefits-live
> 
> Looks like he has took Smiths whole lexicon of ideas and language and put them into one speech, he has also took the worse policies from around the globe while ignoring positive antipoverty strategies like those in Brazil, what a wanker...


 
The speech did sound like it had been cobbled together by some Daily Mail-obssessed SPAD during a late night wikipedia blitz, and for every issue that Cameron raised they have managed to ignore (or more likely, didnt even think of because they have no conception of what life is like "down there") some rather obvious reasons why those situations exist.

For instance, the reason why that hospital porter and care worker couple might not be able to afford to raise a family is probably because of what has happened to the levels of pay, job security and terms and conditions in those fields over the past twenty years. The reason why those young people have to stay at home until they are 30 is because noone (not the state, not HAs and certainly not private building firms) will provide properties that most people can afford to buy, plus of course lets not forget the level of debt (especially things like student loans) that some of those people are already in (edit) as a direct result of government policy. The reason why HB costs are so high is because the state has refused over the past thirty years to do something that it knows will bring those costs (and associated stuff like rent levels) down; etc etc etc

But of course its all the fault of the feckless claimant.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1fc548ce-ba39-11e1-aa8d-00144feabdc0.html'
> 
> Meanwhile A4E are sending claimants on NLP courses to inculcate the right attitudes to work, no different in effect to what the eastern bloc countries undertook,




It'd be more productive to give employers a course of NLP. Oh sorry, I forgot: The place of the unemployed (and other types of benefit claimant) is on their knees and in the wrong.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

Someone has quoted the a BBC news correspondent elsewhere as saying ''no doubt the majority of people in this country agree with David Cameron about the level of benefits paid out to under 25's including single mothers'' I wish i could find the actual package, this is unacceptable...


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> More talk on various news channels today of "regionalising" benefits - i.e. cutting benefit levels for those not living in the south east


 
Or passing the costs to local councils?


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> I wonder how they will rebrand the new workhouses?


this looks like a solution, albeit a wee bit final!
http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-7451-panoV9free-zind.jpg


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Or passing the costs to local councils?


well quite - shifting the blame/responsibility.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> this looks like a solution, albeit a wee bit final!
> http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-7451-panoV9free-zind.jpg


the plans are in bloody foreign 

can british architects no longer design extinction chambers?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> Cameron has been citing Germany as a country which has recently sucessfully brought in such changes to HB or similar, but keen CIF'ers have found out that it has been ruled unconstitutional by its main court and given Merkel one year to restructure it, why haven't paid journalists, inc the BBC picked up on that?


 
They aren't journos, they are stenographers, especially at the BBC, where helping shove this shite along is not just their job, but their duty.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2012)

'churnalism' british media comes off as an echo chamber for number tens latest air biscuits, fuck me.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> Someone has quoted the a BBC news correspondent elsewhere as saying ''no doubt the majority of people in this country agree with David Cameron about the level of benefits paid out to under 25's including single mothers'' I wish i could find the actual package, this is unacceptable...


 
"no doubt"  translation "i just made it up in my head"


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> They aren't journos, they are stenographers, especially at the BBC, where helping shove this shite along is not just their job, but their duty.


 
Nick Robinson has just come out and said ''The prime minister is using his position to spark a debate which he already knows he's won.'' quoting a You Gov/Prospect Poll(yeah right) which indicates majority support for the changes, ffs, no mention of five years or more of constant propaganda by the state and the media, (inc those ubiquitous and sinister DWP Fraud target posters)has helped shape public opinion, when it comes to the BBC and welfare and benefits, Pravda comes to mind...


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2012)

btw, just read all his 'ideas' on the Guardian feed, England would be a very different place if they all happen, more (private?) prisons would be needed for a start...

do people think he will get a poll bounce from this?, if he doesn't he is in big trouble...

oh, and the  way he robustly and clearly stated pensioners won't be affected, shows just how political and ideological these policies are...


----------



## duncanh64 (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> Nick Robinson has just come out and said ''The prime minister is using his position to spark a debate which he already knows he's won.'' quoting a You Gov/Prospect Poll(yeah right) which indicates majority support for the changes, ffs, no mention of five years or more of constant propaganda by the state and the media, (inc those ubiquitous and sinister DWP Fraud target posters)has helped shape public opinion, when it comes to the BBC and welfare and benefits, Pravda comes to mind...


 
He's clearly banking on all this going down well with voters; I think the figure Robinson mentioned was 74% in support of welfare cuts. That's a sizeable majority; can we explain this _solely_ by reference to the media's incessant propaganda? There seems to be a vitriolic attitude towards claimants that goes beyond press brainwashing...


----------



## agricola (Jun 25, 2012)

duncanh64 said:


> He's clearly banking on all this going down well with voters; I think the figure Robinson mentioned was 74% in support of welfare cuts. That's a sizeable majority; can we explain this _solely_ by reference to the media's incessant propaganda? There seems to be a vitriolic attitude towards claimants that goes beyond press brainwashing...


 
No doubt there are some people who take the piss in terms of benefit claims, but a combination of the decades-long press campaign, and the utter uselessness of most politicians in terms of articulating an argument against the whole welfare "cuts" / A4e + workfare policy framework (specifically to identify policies that cost less, are fairer and which offer far more support than what is available now), is far more to blame.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

I was about to post that unfortunately I can see this being a very popular policy, but I've been cheered up by one of my brothers who is frankly bloody right-wing in some of his views posting on fb saying:

'Even I, as the most anti "benefits lifestyle" person I know, am getting heartily sick of the broken record. It's almost enough to turn you into a socialist.'

Now I know Cameron's _really_ gone too far 

Unfortunately not everyone who has swingy views like him has a little sister who's a single parent with three kids dependent on housing benefit though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2012)

From what I can see, the tory party are acting in the same mannr as they did last time they held the reigns. During a boom time. During a period of relative prosperity. Now with the full force of a failure of capitalism dry-bumming most of the electorate, they are still doing slash and burn to the state. I mean- even the most lacking in compassion got up in arms about workfare, and still are. Serfdom isn't attractive, even to w/c tory voters.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

Perhaps it's time to shift the argument? Something along the lines of, "Okay, we've now got all these people living with their parents; how are their parents going to support them?" A quick-and-dirty solution might be to allow parents to use their childrens' tax allowances. Or continue child benefit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Why is a _solution_ required? There is no problem.​​To the rich and BTL scummers - basic set rents below the rates of social housing that you have to then invest in a social housing fund and a body to buy up and maintain the properties when you all cry off going _what's in it for me._​


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why is a _solution_ required? There is no problem.


 
People appear to have been persuaded otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> People appear to have been persuaded otherwise.


You do. I think you can be changed back. I also think you want to believe that there is a problem. Myself, i trust peoples experiences their capabilities and their intelligence.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 25, 2012)

mentalchik said:


>


I don't get it, sorry


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> I don't get it, sorry


I took mentalchik's smilies to mean that it'd be a bit weirdly ironic if couples cohabiting for a year or more before marriage actually turned out to improve the duration of their marriages (thereby falling more into the conservative view of being part of a strong society, in spite of not doing the supposedly traditional thing).


----------



## 8115 (Jun 25, 2012)

Something I was reading today said the welfare bill is set to be about £22.4bn in the next few years (can't remember the exact point, I think it was Friday's Guardian or something).  It said the Tories want to lose £10bn off this.  The mind boggles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> Something I was reading today said the welfare bill is set to be about £22.4bn in the next few years (can't remember the exact point, I think it was Friday's Guardian or something). It said the Tories want to lose £10bn off this. The mind boggles.


it's not going to be too hard. chop the benefits down and wait for the suicides.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There is no problem.​


 
There is a problem, I think.  I think probably some people (whether claiming any benefits or not) don't have enough money to have a good quality of life (and maybe don't for other reasons too).  This is the problem.  And the Tories are mashing this problem up with people's fear of all their taxes going on people who don't even try to get a job, so they can give it a smiley caring face.  And that's what's really bullshit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> "no doubt" translation "i just made it up in my head"


 
Or "I assume they think like that in the real world, but I don't know, because I live in the Hampstead bubble".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> Nick Robinson has just come out and said ''The prime minister is using his position to spark a debate which he already knows he's won.'' quoting a You Gov/Prospect Poll(yeah right) which indicates majority support for the changes, ffs, no mention of five years or more of constant propaganda by the state and the media, (inc those ubiquitous and sinister DWP Fraud target posters)has helped shape public opinion, when it comes to the BBC and welfare and benefits, Pravda comes to mind...


 
Once a Tory, always a fucking Tory. He was president of Oxford university Conservative Association in the early-mid-'80s, pretty much at the height of the FCS/Monday Club/"hang Mandela" shitcuntery that was going on in the uni assocs.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 25, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I took mentalchik's smilies to mean that it'd be a bit weirdly ironic if couples cohabiting for a year or more before marriage actually turned out to improve the duration of their marriages (thereby falling more into the conservative view of being part of a strong society, in spite of not doing the supposedly traditional thing).


Hmmm, well that was certainly what my original message meant to imply (it's just that suspicious and confused smilies tend to suggest disagreement...)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

duncanh64 said:


> He's clearly banking on all this going down well with voters; I think the figure Robinson mentioned was 74% in support of welfare cuts. That's a sizeable majority; can we explain this _solely_ by reference to the media's incessant propaganda? There seems to be a vitriolic attitude towards claimants that goes beyond press brainwashing...


 
1) Never trust surveys unless those who purvey the survey (see what I did there?  ) also offer up the data their conclusions are based on. I'm betting on a sample of no more than 10,000.

2) It's not about "press brainwashing", it's about the last 33 years having been an indoctrination into the practice of individualism - There's no such thing as society, just people and groups, so don't worry about your fellow man, worry about what he's stealing from you, instead! People with long-term health problems are merely an easy target. If they could have gotten away with it, they'd have attacked the elderly instead.

3) The above, of course, is "the Great Deflection" being practiced on us. Once you've eroded social solidarities, inculcated people to fear rather than friendship and indoctrinated selfishness as a replacement for altruism into people, they're too busy watching each other to pay too much attention to the friends of the politicians putting their hands deeper and deeper into our pockets


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's not going to be too hard. chop the benefits down and wait for the suicides.


 
And the pogroms.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 25, 2012)

....and hard labour for benefits and more private run prisons.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You do.


 
Yes, I do, but not in the way you think.



> I also think you want to believe that there is a problem.


 
I know there's a problem. A huge problem, far wider than this, and the source and solution to that problem both lie in Downing Street (never mind lying on TV...) But politics is the art of the possible, and the public appear to want _something to be done_ (never mind how that want came to be). So the trick is to get the politicians to do the right thing.

I don't want people sleeping rough. I don't want unscrupulous employers taking advantage of vulnerable people. I want children to grow up in loving environments, not squalor. And more. Changes to the benefits system threaten those most in need, and I don't think simplistic protesting will get anywhere. Rather, an alternative solution is needed; I don't have one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Yes, I do, but not in the way you think.


 How then?




> I know there's a problem. A huge problem, far wider than this, and the source and solution to that problem both lie in Downing Street (never mind lying on TV...) But politics is the art of the possible, and the public appear to want _something to be done_ (never mind how that want came to be). So the trick is to get the politicians to do the right thing.
> 
> I don't want people sleeping rough. I don't want unscrupulous employers taking advantage of vulnerable people. I want children to grow up in loving environments, not squalor. And more. Changes to the benefits system threaten those most in need, and I don't think simplistic protesting will get anywhere. Rather, an alternative solution is needed; I don't have one.


 
What is the problem, you neglected to say.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What is the problem, you neglected to say.


 
That's something for another thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> That's something for another thread.


No it's not. It's for this thread given that you're firing off all sorts of answers on it.


----------



## Corax (Jun 25, 2012)

The whole austerity thing is such utter bollocks, and I'm sure we'll see plenty more of this kind of shit in the next few years.  Anything to avoid facing up to the necessity for redistribution of wealth.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. It's for this thread given that you're firing off all sorts of answers on it.


 
I've thrown off a couple of ideas, a far cry from answers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I've thrown off a couple of ideas, a far cry from answers.


To what problem?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2012)

why haven't the feckless cunts got ebuff munee for the housing which our shit-witted policies have mad unnaffordable....wail, sob,cry


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I've thrown off a couple of ideas, a far cry from answers.


 
Like a dog shaking off some fleas.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

laptop said:


> "Secure villages"? "Strategic hamlets"?


Safe homes


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

This is on the news right now and my blood is fucking boiling. 

I am so fucking fed up of this bullshit; is he going to call for a rise in wages so that those who have to claim on top of working will no longer need to?  What's going to happen to kids in care; they're made to leave at 16, whose going to house them if under 25's can't claim?  What happens to people in abusive relationships?  What if you're 23 and terminally ill?  WHERE ARE THE JOBS?  OH WAIT, THERE AREN'T ANY. 

Jesus Christ this is beyond a fucking joke.  </rant>


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Like a dog shaking off some fleas.


 
Better than impotent opposition.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Do you not need to subtract the contributory state pension from the benefits for elderly people? It's not exactly a benefit, because you don't get it if you didn't pay for it.


Not my analysis - see the link I posted. I


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Better than impotent opposition.


What is - and to what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Better than impotent opposition.


you mean you'll kowtow to whatever's suggested because you think it's going to get through.

fucking not with a bang, but - in your case - without barely even a fucking whimper.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Better than impotent opposition.


 
A titan of political debate aren't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I've thrown off a couple of ideas, a far cry from answers.


you mean you've discarded a couple of ideas.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 25, 2012)

I think Quartz needs to try a bit of Cicero when it comes to making a coherent point especially as he fancies himself a bit of a classicist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think Quartz needs to try a bit of Cicero when it comes to making a coherent point especially as he fancies himself a bit of a classicist.


i think the only thing he should take from the romans is the proud roman tradition of falling on your sword - or, at a pinch, kitchen knife - when your position is no longer tenable.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 25, 2012)

Yes you're right, I take my suggestion back and offer up a rusty butter knife


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

The one who pulled all his guts out.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The one who pulled all his guts out.


 
I was thinking of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorica_ad_Herennium but on second thoughts I think the guts bit would be better.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Cato



> He did commit suicide by stabbing himself following Scipio's defeat, supposedly to deny Caesar the power to pardon him. A surgeon attempted to save him by stitching up the wound, but Cato was determined to die, and pulled out the stitches and his own intestines.


Fitting for these gutless wonders and 'there are problems' - well, first line is you, you're helping make the problems by this stupidity. (But with less honour obv).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Cato
> 
> 
> Fitting for these gutless wonders and 'there are problems' - well, first line is you, you're helping make the problems by this stupidity. (But with less honour obv


perhaps a cross between cato and gaius mucius scaevola.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps a cross between cato and marcus scaevola.


ACAM


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2012)

who was the one who opened his own veins then held a soiree while slowly bleeding out....gotta admire that level of panache...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Paddick


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/25/david-cameron-wants-further-welfare-cuts



> 7 Requiring benefit claimants to gain basic literacy and numeracy skills, and to prepare CVs in return for receiving jobseeker's allowance.
> 
> 10 Requiring 580,000 lone parents on out-of-work income support with children as young as three to prepare for work by attending job centres, write a CV or learn new skills. The current age limit is five. At present lone parents are only required to attend a job centre every three months


 
This is such patronising fucking bullshit. All benefit claimants are thick. All single mothers are thick and sit on their arse all day. I've got a fucking degree for fuck's sake. I better not lose my job because I know exactly how hard it will be to find another one that is as understanding and accommodating about taking time off when the kids are ill.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

and this 



> 9 Requiring anyone on employment support allowance to improve their medical condition in return for benefits, for example, taking free physiotherapy if suffering from a bad back.


 
I mean


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

Where do you even begin on that last one, weeps, it's just laughable.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

How do you improve a medical condition?


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> How do you improve a medical condition?


 
You take up thy bed and walk.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

free physiotherapy - they've all got fake bad backs.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

> 7 Requiring benefit claimants to gain basic literacy and numeracy skills, and to prepare CVs in return for receiving jobseeker's allowance.


 
do they know anything about literacy issues? it's not just someone being thick and watching jeremy kyle all day and not being bothered to learn. shit like this is hardly going to improve somebodys confidence.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> You take up thy bed and walk.


Round to the back of poundland.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Round to the back of poundland.


 
They're going set up tent cities in the carparks, that'll deal with the housing benefit problem at the same time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> They're going set up tent cities in the carparks, that'll deal with the housing benefit problem at the same time.


and it will provide some income from carparks suffering from the dwindling number of people driving.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> and this
> 
> 
> 
> I mean


When I think of how much grief one urbanite has very got from his boss for taking time off work to follow the advice of his physiotherapist, the mind boggles.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> How do you improve a medical condition?


Well, it depends on the condition - talk to any NHS physio and they'd tell you the problem is that referrals are so slow and waiting lists so long that they don't get to see many people while injuries are still fresh enough to have a chance of curing instead of just managing them.

Then there are things made worse by stress. Not just burnout and depression but M.E., M.S. and a lot of autoimmune diseases. Really and truly the last thing these people need is more trouble with bureacrats on top of getting to grips with stabilising and then improving their condition as far as possible.

But for some other stuff, no improvement's realistic at all. There's only so much that rehabilitation and OT can do, even when it's available and suitable.


----------



## Corax (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> do they know anything about literacy issues?


Probably not.  But I doubt Joe Bloggs does either.

It's unsurprising that U75 is pretty universal in condemnation - but how will it play out with the electorate?

The Mail have used infoboxes titled "Elderly Won't Lose Benefits" and "Model Pioneered in the US".  There's sod all left of centre media these days; I'm really not confident that this will turn out to be as unpopular as it should be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Why would you judge popular opinion from these sources?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> How do you improve a medical condition?


 
Suppose if you cut off your arms and legs (if they were causing you pain), you wouldn't feel the pain any more, only phantom pain


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

This poll on the Torygraph is currently running at about 63% _against_ scrapping HB for under 25s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...l-the-benefits-system-says-David-Cameron.html


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> This poll on the Torygraph is currently running at about 63% _against_ scrapping HB for under 25s.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...l-the-benefits-system-says-David-Cameron.html


 
Not really a huge majority is it


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Good start in the face of large media official support and muppets  who think they're against the changes supporting them.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 25, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Not really a huge majority is it


 
Given the views of the average Telegraph reader it's perhaps encouraging though


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Given the views of the average Telegraph reader it's perhaps encouraging though


 
Yeah, but probably more to do with they're glad to see the back of their kids rather than anything to do with money


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

Corax said:


> Probably not. But I doubt Joe Bloggs does either.
> 
> It's unsurprising that U75 is pretty universal in condemnation - but how will it play out with the electorate?
> 
> The Mail have used infoboxes titled "Elderly Won't Lose Benefits" and "Model Pioneered in the US". There's sod all left of centre media these days; I'm really not confident that this will turn out to be as unpopular as it should be.


 
i reckon they know more than you think. housing benefit is a massive thing, it's not like people don't know anything about it or dont know anyone who receives it.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jun 26, 2012)




----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Good start in the face of large media official support and muppets who think they're against the changes supporting them.


 

On the BBC paper review, the presenter(can't think of his name, Chris, someone?) chided the liberal paper reviewer for describing the changes as 'draconian' What was incredible is that the latter then rowed back from what he previously said, emphasising there are plenty who do swing the lead, not sure what to make of it, are reviewers on BBC contracts?

and on Sky News, the presenter added her two pence worth in favour of the reforms, what a sham...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2012)

They just all piss in the same pot, it's that simple. The BBC is a site of struggle - albeit one rigged and operating almost perfectly right now. You didn't have any illusions in these people after Orgreave?


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/25/camerons-welfare-speech-editorial

Guardian launches ferocious(for them) attack on the proposals, there are three different articles attacking them, inc one from Polly...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2012)

They can fuck off after helping them get here. Helping build their ramparts.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Why would you judge popular opinion from these sources?



Eh?  Nothing about what popular opinion is, just about the line the media take to influence it.


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They just all piss in the same pot, it's that simple. The BBC is a site of struggle - albeit one rigged and operating almost perfectly right now. You didn't have any illusions in these people after Orgreave?


 
Maybe so, but coverage of welfare issues has been especially dire and biased, for instance, Cameron has posited policies that have come directly from the US, imo, its imcumbent on the BBC to look at what happened when those polices were implemented and what is happening now:, the tent cities, the many millions in prison or or food parcels/stamps, or those who have taken three jobs just to survive...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> Maybe so, but coverage of welfare issues has been especially dire and biased, for instance, Cameron has posited policies that have come directly from the US, imo, its imcumbent on the BBC to look at what happened when those polices were implemented and what is happening now:, the tent cities, the many millions in prison or or food parcels/stamps, or those who have taken three jobs just to survive...


It's not incumbent on them, That's not why they are there. They haven't. Why not? That's my point.


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They can fuck off after helping them get here. Helping build their ramparts.


 
in the editorial they have described it as 'class warfare', thats pretty good in my book, Glovers gone now, maybe things change...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2012)

Vote labour too. The guardian all about class war, j_ust doing it right_. In fact urging the 'class war' Cameron mentions. They don't change, their interests don't change because one person has gone - how do you think he got the job? By challenging their values?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2012)

This means, _i hope they win this class war, but they might not_ - you should be able to read what this says by now:



> The political strategy is clear – opening a second front in the class war may just divert enough bile towards the bottom to protect those at the top smarting from Nadine Dorries's "posh boy" charge. Punishing scroungers may be popular in general terms, but support will shatter if the government lacks the competence to sort the "deserving" from the "undeserving". Glitches with the universal credit and a crazy new council tax rebate may soon destroy faith in its ability to run benefits in practice. The theory should be the easy bit, but Monday's speech revealed that Mr Cameron is shaky even on that.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/25/camerons-welfare-speech-editorial
> 
> Guardian launches ferocious(for them) attack on the proposals, there are three different articles attacking them, inc one from Polly...


 
Just been looking at that and reading the comments



> *54 Billionaires in the UK pay just £13 million tax a year between them *
> *£11 Million of this is paid by just two of them; Dyson and Rowling.*
> CE0's award themselves 12% rises!!
> £45 Billion in personal and corporate tax goes uncollected
> ...


 
Is that bit I've highlighted true?


----------



## Quartz (Jun 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> A titan of political debate aren't you?


 
Tired and ready for bed, more like.



Pickman's model said:


> you mean you'll kowtow to whatever's suggested because you think it's going to get through.


 
No; trying to influence what gets put forward in the first place. If you don't like the ideas, come up with better ones.



Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think Quartz needs to try a bit of Cicero when it comes to making a coherent point especially as he fancies himself a bit of a classicist.


 
Or, as a classicist, I could be looking at the past and not wallowing in past glories. Look how much those precious protests achieved against Thatcher & Blair. The Miners' strike. The Wapping riots. The Countryside Alliance. The anti-Gulf War marches. Precisely zero.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 26, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Or, as a classicist, I could be looking at the past and not wallowing in past glories. Look how much those precious protests achieved against Thatcher & Blair. The Miners' strike. The Wapping riots. The Countryside Alliance. The anti-Gulf War marches. Precisely zero.


 
I didn't say you were a classicist, just you fancy yourself as one - the following sentence makes no sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Yes, I do, but not in the way you think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
One can still grow up in a loving environment, even amid squalor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Corax said:


> The whole austerity thing is such utter bollocks, and I'm sure we'll see plenty more of this kind of shit in the next few years. Anything to avoid facing up to the necessity for redistribution of wealth.


 
Whether "plenty more" happens is something that every single one of us has a responsibility for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Better than impotent opposition.


 
Mmmm, that *would* explain how liberals are able to sleep at night.

"I tossed some ideas out there. I did my share, damn it!".

Treble fails all round!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes you're right, I take my suggestion back and offer up a rusty butter knife


 
I read that as "a lustbather knife".


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> One can still grow up in a loving environment, even amid squalor.


 
And you can be rich and grow up in an unloving one. There were a number of girls i went to school with who were physically abused. No danger of them being taken by social services however.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 26, 2012)

im becoming inclined to believe what someone posted earlier, that the torys are rolling out long term benefit reforms, they will stand aside for a weak labour government to take over as theyre implemented thus getting flak and then torys back on track with what cameron has started in 2 elections time.


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yeah, but probably more to do with they're glad to see the back of their kids rather than anything to do with money


 
This is probably an actual factor.

It is the remnants of the "aspiritional middle class" that is Cameron's key constituency. They are the main sector of society (ime) that are keenest to have the kids "fly the nest" and are (again ime) scared shitless of the choice between having the kids living at home in the mid to late 20s or (even worse) having to stump up cash out of the reirement fund to subsidise housing for their kids (with rent spiralling and banks still asking for huge deposits).

Of course, Cameron has shown time and again that he doesn't actually have a clue how this middle class thinks and that he is rapidly whipping the rug from under his own feet by getting millionaires confused with white collar workers...


----------



## laptop (Jun 26, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> im becoming inclined to believe what someone posted earlier, that the torys are rolling out long term benefit reforms, they will stand aside for a weak labour government to take over as theyre implemented thus getting flak and then torys back on track with what cameron has started in 2 elections time.


 
Government says so, apparently and off the record:



> Downing Street sources said there was an element of pitch rolling – preparing public opinion for future reforms.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/david-cameron-welfare


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2012)

Govts don't 'stand aside' though - there's no mechanism or precedent for any such thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

weepiper said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/25/david-cameron-wants-further-welfare-cuts
> 
> 
> 
> This is such patronising fucking bullshit. All benefit claimants are thick. All single mothers are thick and sit on their arse all day. I've got a fucking degree for fuck's sake. I better not lose my job because I know exactly how hard it will be to find another one that is as understanding and accommodating about taking time off when the kids are ill.


 
Their assumptions are based on two things: Their attitudes towards "the lower orders", and the fact that they can sell the contract for these "basic skills" training sessions to one of their equally-cuntish mates.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2012)

They're talking about this on Radio 4 now. Most callers so far seem to be against the Tory line.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> How do you improve a medical condition?


 
It's the Power of David Macaroon, the One True G-d. He says "take up your bed and walk, foul cripple", and miraculously you're cured, all because of the glory that is Macaroon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

weepiper said:


> You take up thy bed and walk.


 
Exactly what occurred to me.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2012)

that's my point though. YOU can't decide to get better from an illness by yourself I mean Jesus wept. What planet are these people living on, have rich twats had access to regenerated limbs for 20 years or something?

you'll have to forgive me i'm on one today, a combination of reading laurie penny's bollocks first thing in the morning and having no work for the last two weeks has left me seriously pissed off


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> free physiotherapy - they've all got fake bad backs.


 
The disgustingly laughable thing is that, for example, if I hadn't have been kept waiting nearly 6 months for physio the first time I injured my lumbar spine, back during Major's reign, it's be one less factor in my continuing downward spiral of health. No amount of physio can cure it now. The most it has done is show me a few exercises so that the surrounding muscles give as much support as possible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> that's my point though. YOU can't decide to get better from an illness by yourself I mean Jesus wept. What planet are these people living on, have rich twats had access to regenerated limbs for 20 years or something?
> 
> you'll have to forgive me i'm on one today, a combination of reading laurie penny's bollocks first thing in the morning and having no work for the last two weeks has left me seriously pissed off


 
You "rant" away, my friend. AFAICS you're not going off on one, you're pointing up basic bollocks that some cunt in the Downing St. press unit should have edited out once they came down from the crystal meth they'd obviously just smoked.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2012)

Stupid woman talking now. "_There is work out there. I did 3 jobs when I had children_". Errr... there are no jobs though. we're in an economic depression you idiot.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 26, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Stupid woman talking now. "_There is work out there. I did 3 jobs when I had children_". Errr... there are no jobs though. we're in an economic depression you idiot.


 
Of course you did pet. But I bet you weren't using paid childcare while you were working your 3 jobs. I bet your mum or a neighbour or the eldest child was looking after them for free. Not everyone has that luxury. 40 years ago it was acceptable to leave your 8 year old unsupervised between school finishing and 6pm, now it would get your kids taken off you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> Maybe so, but coverage of welfare issues has been especially dire and biased, for instance, Cameron has posited policies that have come directly from the US, imo, its imcumbent on the BBC to look at what happened when those polices were implemented and what is happening now:, the tent cities, the many millions in prison or or food parcels/stamps, or those who have taken three jobs just to survive...


 
Why? They're state propagands and always have been despite their much-vaunted charter.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2012)

Well the programme has finished now. My faith in humanity is (very slightly) restored. Pheww!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Tired and ready for bed, more like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As a classicist, aren't you supposed to be at least slightly attuned to history?


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> One can still grow up in a loving environment, even amid squalor.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 26, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Of course you did pet. But I bet you weren't using paid childcare while you were working your 3 jobs. I bet your mum or a neighbour or the eldest child was looking after them for free. Not everyone has that luxury. 40 years ago it was acceptable to leave your 8 year old unsupervised between school finishing and 6pm, now it would get your kids taken off you.


 
Tbh I think Cameron and his pals would be quite happy to see us back in the days of two year olds wandering the streets in their nappies while their mum scrubs floors.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Tbh I think Cameron and his pals would be quite happy to see us back in the days of two year olds wandering the streets in their nappies while their mum scrubs floors.


 
At least they're not _starving_.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Leaving aside some of the rhetoric and even the mature, considered responses I'd appreciate a response to this:

I've worked all my life delivering services to the public and bringing up my own family. My work was in the community with what were colloquially known as 'Sin-Bins' (horrid expression) or Pupil Referral Units. It was demanding but it certainly afforded insights into lots of things. Invariably most of the youngsters were 'victims' of seriously fucked up parents who you wouldn't trust with a pet spider let alone another human being.

And so I have this question from a real situation. A female gets intentionally/accidentally pregnant. Acquires a council flat. Three years later she decides to have another child by another unknown father - as far as the CSA is concerned. She then effects a transfer from a two bedroomed flat to a three bedroomed semi-detached house. All is well.

Fourteen years later she has never done a days work - except for 'bringing up' the children. She tells a part-time boyfriend who has just been made redundant he should get a new job. He replies: 'What about you getting a job?' She says she doesn't have to work because: 'I All have to do is sit here and wait for my DWP money to go into my account each month - laughter.'

Well wise ones, whatever your political ideology, are you really saying that _The State_ should carry such people? They should shelter and feed them for 14 or more years without making any claim on them to make some contribution to society? Are we really so affluent that we can provide for such people without making any demands on them whatsoever? I am not, by the way, talking about an individual(s) who has a specific health problem. I am talking about somebody who doesn't give a fuck about anybody else other than themselves.

Like it or lump it the above feeds the_ Mail_ with its stories but can you really defend what I would consider is indefensible?

I don't know what you idea of nirvana is but mine would not be one in which the burden of fit and healthy individuals are carried by others. Yes, yes I know we do that already with the rich but does that excuse those who don't have the wealth from doing the same? A parasite is a parasite.

I'll ignore any 'workist' shit because 99.9% of those who want to screw the system are not that much different from the rich who do the same. And make no mistake they certainly do not subscribe to anything that remotely connects with organised community politics - yours or mine.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo, how many women do you personally know (through direct experience, not hearsay or the media) who are like that?


----------



## Mungy (Jun 26, 2012)

zabo, the person you describe is in the minority though. Those who don't want to work and do whatever it is they do all day shouldn't be hassled. Whilst they may be parasites, around £7k pa for benefits pales in comparison to £6bn that Vodafone dodged. Or the expenses bills of some of out MP's. Much better those who don't want to work are kept doing what they do.

I had my own business some years ago now and whilst I was never in a position to employ someone, it was something I gave some thought to and came to the conclusion that I would like to employ people who enjoyed the work rather than someone who thought of it as a drag.


----------



## Mephitic (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> SNIP@ Well wise ones, whatever your political ideology, are you really saying that _The State_ should carry such people? They should shelter and feed them for 14 or more years without making any claim on them to make some contribution to society?


 
Yes, I have no fucking problem with that what-so-ever. If someone wants to have a few kids then spend their days happily looking after them and then watching afternoon TV while eating some cheesy quavers until the kids get home from school, then hell yeah I am 100% fine with my taxes paying for that.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

I agree Mungy they are indeed in a minority but my goodness the media latch on to them and thus scar all the genuine claimants such as kids leaving care, those seeking independent living because of health problems. Root them out and the media will have to turn its eye elsewhere.

I also agree about what you have to say about Vodafone and all the rest but I don't think that should be an excuse or a rationale for carrying the lazy bastards - in whatever guise.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Zabo, how many women do you personally know (through direct experience, not hearsay or the media) who are like that?


 
From one estate alone twenty. You don't need to do door-to-door surveys. Visit to 'community groups' provides the evidence.

Regardless, one, like Vodafone, is one too many unless of course you are so altruistic you don't mind carnying dead weight.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> From one estate alone twenty. You don't need to do door-to-door surveys. Visit to 'community groups' provides the evidence.


 
Bollocks. They're all _exactly the same story_ are they? They all had their child(ren) 'deliberately' and got 'given' a council flat and then 'transferred' to a semi-det council house just like that, did they? Total horseshit.


----------



## yield (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I also agree about what you have to say about Vodafone and all the rest but I don't think that should be an excuse or a rationale for carrying the lazy bastards - in whatever guise.


Dealing With the Renegades


----------



## Greebo (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> From one estate alone twenty. You don't need to do door-to-door surveys. Visit to 'community groups' provides the evidence.
> 
> Regardless, one, like Vodafone, is one too many unless of course you are so altruistic you don't mind carnying dead weight.


Even If I were to take your so-called evidence at face value, what would you want to do to her? Sterilise any "female" like that one? Remove her children and put them in care (which BTW would work out more expensive than leaving them with their mum)? Force her children (who didn't ask to be conceived, let alone born) to sleep 3 to a bed and 6 to a room?  

Edited to add:  Zabo, it is precisely attitudes like yours which have deprived young women like the one you described of hope and any chance of improving their lives.   If you don't want them to get pregnant early, you have to offer them something more to look forward to than working all hours in a soul-destroying dead-end job.  If you don't want them to "sit around", good quality free (state funded) childcare, with well trained staff, and which fits with fulltime working hours must be provided.  Are you willing to fund that?


----------



## Mungy (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I agree Mungy they are indeed in a minority but my goodness the media latch on to them and thus scar all the genuine claimants such as kids leaving care, those seeking independent living because of health problems. Root them out and the media will have to turn its eye elsewhere.
> 
> I also agree about what you have to say about Vodafone and all the rest but I don't think that should be an excuse or a rationale for carrying the lazy bastards - in whatever guise.


The media look where they are told to look by their masters. The hard targets, the mega rich, the tax avoiders. Get them first, take them down, then you will find that there is more money to go around and the few skimming £7k a year from the tax payer won't even be noticed. Its a matter of perspective. The current salary for an MP is around £65k and they can claim expenses on top of that. Can you see any unfairness in that when they tell us "we are all in this together" ?


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Leaving aside some of the rhetoric and even the mature, considered responses I'd appreciate a response to this:
> 
> I've worked all my life delivering services to the public and bringing up my own family. My work was in the community with what were colloquially known as 'Sin-Bins' (horrid expression) or Pupil Referral Units. It was demanding but it certainly afforded insights into lots of things. Invariably most of the youngsters were 'victims' of seriously fucked up parents who you wouldn't trust with a pet spider let alone another human being.
> 
> ...


unicorns.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Bollocks. They're all _exactly the same story_ are they? They all had their child(ren) 'deliberately' and got 'given' a council flat and then 'transferred' to a semi-det council house just like that, did they? Total horseshit.


 
I see. You know these particular people too? You have met them? You know all their personal biographies or is it that you are so fucking myopic that the first thing you do is exactly the same as the _Mail_ in that you make an uncorroborated comment. Knee jerks are not exclusive to the right.

I selected one family. Some have more than two children. Others have one. But they all share the same common feature - fuck society, why should we work? We is happy with our lot - relatively. 

And don't even make the mistake of thinking they are 'the working class'.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 26, 2012)

I know somebody like that, personally, Zabo.  I wouldn't want to see her kids go hungry, so I could never support any sort of sanction against her; why should her children suffer for what is a minimal cost compared to how much the ultra wealthy cost us in tax avoidance?  I don't believe anybody should be sanctioned; everybody has a right to a warm, dry dwelling, heat, food etc. 

I think you also have to think about what these phrases really mean.  When somebody says 'I can't be bothered' do they really mean it?  Or do they mean 'I don't have the confidence to do that' or 'I've never done that before' or 'I'm afraid I'll fail'.  If you've not long left school and then suddenly had a few kids, the world of work, and looking for work can be an absolutely terrifying prospect.  Or if you've never finished school or been in a bit of trouble with the law or whatever, going back into education can be equally terrifying.   Wouldn't it be better to make the choice to access real support (not support with the constant fear of sanction overhead) better, instead of judging them as scroungers and using them as a stick to beat everybody else with?  I think so.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Mungy said:


> The media look where they are told to look by their masters. The hard targets, the mega rich, the tax avoiders. Get them first, take them down, then you will find that there is more money to go around and the few skimming £7k a year from the tax payer won't even be noticed. Its a matter of perspective. The current salary for an MP is around £65k and they can claim expenses on top of that. Can you see any unfairness in that when they tell us "we are all in this together" ?


 
I'm not disagreeing with you for a single moment - not one. Alas, if we could manage to re-cycle the wealth the example I gave wouldn't want to work but rather have a little more. Sadly, they would not be joining you in wanting to challenge the system. That would be too much like hard work.

Horrid cliché but two wrongs....etc.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Well wise ones, whatever your political ideology, are you really saying that _The State_ should carry such people? They should shelter and feed them for 14 or more years without making any claim on them to make some contribution to society? Are we really so affluent that we can provide for such people without making any demands on them whatsoever? I am not, by the way, talking about an individual(s) who has a specific health problem. I am talking about somebody who doesn't give a fuck about anybody else other than themselves.


 
This is not the paragraph I was expecting to follow the preceding ones.

Why are you assuming she doesn't give a fuck about anybody else but herself?
Bringing up children is a contribution to society.
Where was the state when she was being the victim of seriously fucked up parents?
What other support is the State giving her other than funds for her and her children's' basic needs? Maybe she could do with some support over and above that with bringing up our future adult citizens, rather than villification.
How many of these people are there? How much does it cost to 'carry' them?
How much would the alternatives cost? What are they anyway? 
Doesn't being the victim of seriously fucked up parents at least sometimes leave those victims with problems which could be addressed by state services?
What claim should we make on them to contribute (in addition to bringing up children) to society?
Why would you make someone with kids who doesn't want a job take a job, bearing in mind that means one less job out there for those who do want a job?

In short yes I think the state should. And it should do more too. And I'm happy for my taxes to be spent on that.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> you are so fucking myopic


 
you've got some brass neck.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Bringing up children is a contribution to society.


 
That's a given but also applies to those who work and bring up children.

Spot the difference?


----------



## Mephitic (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I selected one family. Some have more than two children. Others have one. But they all share the same common feature - fuck society, why should we work? We is happy with our lot - relatively.


 
So fucking what? Its their choice, why do you have a problem with it?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> That's a given but also applies to those who work and bring up children.
> 
> Spot the difference?


 
No.

Also you appear to have missed the rest of my post.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Maybe we should open the no need to work - social benefit lifestyle franchise to as many people as possible. Any suggestions for numbers? One million? Ten million? Surly one can't be discriminatory if the option is for people not being compelled to contribute to society - other than having children.

Once all the tax robbers and political cheats have been reined in there will be enough money to allow as many people as possible to idle away the hours. Why not? Sounds good to me.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 26, 2012)

How do you feel about people who live off inherited wealth, and never work a day in their lives?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Maybe we should open the no need to work - social benefit lifestyle franchise to as many people as possible. Any suggestions for numbers? One million? Ten million? Surly one can't be discriminatory if the option is for people not being compelled to contribute to society - other than having children.
> 
> Once all the tax robbers and political cheats have been reined in there will be enough money to allow as many people as possible to idle away the hours. Why not? Sounds good to me.


 
Why don't you sit at home all day on benefits?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

purenarcotic. No different. If they are making no demands on society I couldn't care less what they do.

Shared burden.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Why don't you sit at home all day on benefits?


 
Ethos, philosophy, values.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Why don't you sit at home all day on benefits?


 
Got to wonder, I mean it's so attractive that all these numerous women he knows want to do it


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Ethos, philosophy, values.


 
What ethos? What philosophy? What values? 

Where did you get them from?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> purenarcotic. No different. If they are making no demands on society I couldn't care less what they do.
> 
> Shared burden.


 
In what way are they making no demands on society? Do they never go to school or go to A&E or cross at a pedestrian crossing having been walking on a pavement? And what contribution are they making to society?


----------



## Mephitic (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Maybe we should open the no need to work franchise to as many people as possible. Any suggestions for numbers? One million? Ten million? Surly one can't be discriminatory if the option is for people not being compelled to contribute to society - other than having children.
> 
> Once all the tax robbers and political cheats have been reined in there will be enough money to allow as many people as possible to idle away the hours. Why not? Sounds good to me.


 
I'm starting to think that your ignoring me, but, whatever, IMHO No one should be forced to work if they don't fucking want too, (its hardly a splendid life on the dole). I'm a tad concerned that the tact you appear to be suggesting i.e. contribution to society should be compulsory, will eventually lead to depriving non contributors of housing, money, medical care or education.

I am personally happy for my taxes to be used to support people who don't wish to work, to pay for the medical care of anyone who needs it (including smokers, drinkers, fat folk and drug users) , and to educate anyone who fucking wants it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Leaving aside some of the rhetoric and even the mature, considered responses I'd appreciate a response to this:
> 
> I've worked all my life delivering services to the public and bringing up my own family. My work was in the community with what were colloquially known as 'Sin-Bins' (horrid expression) or Pupil Referral Units. It was demanding but it certainly afforded insights into lots of things. Invariably most of the youngsters were 'victims' of seriously fucked up parents who you wouldn't trust with a pet spider let alone another human being.
> 
> ...


 
Hang on a fucking minute.  What makes you think bringing up kids isn't work?  Fuck me, you worked in a PRU, you must know the importance of parenting!  Yet you come out with this fucking shit?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> From one estate alone twenty. You don't need to do door-to-door surveys. Visit to 'community groups' provides the evidence.
> 
> Regardless, one, like Vodafone, is one too many unless of course you are so altruistic you don't mind carnying dead weight.


 
you're a fucking cunt ain't ya, how come I never noticed before?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I see. You know these particular people too? You have met them? You know all their personal biographies or is it that you are so fucking myopic that the first thing you do is exactly the same as the _Mail_ in that you make an uncorroborated comment. Knee jerks are not exclusive to the right.
> 
> I selected one family. Some have more than two children. Others have one. But they all share the same common feature - fuck society, why should we work? We is happy with our lot - relatively.
> 
> And don't even make the mistake of thinking they are 'the working class'.


 
Hang on, you're the one saying "fuck society" here.  Looking after kids full time is a fairly fucking important part of society!


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> In what way are they making no demands on society? Do they never go to school or go to A&E or cross at a pedestrian crossing having been walking on a pavement? And what contribution are they making to society?


 
You are slipping. You forgot: Breathing the same air. Feeling the rain, snow, sunlight. Seeing trees and rivers and oh so many more things. I mean, how dare they just walk through a council park and enjoy the beauty of the flower beds put in by the council's grafters! Bastards!

Who knows what contributions they make toward society? You don't know and nor do I. We could launch off into a bit of Rumsfeld tortured linguistics - so beloved of Urban - the known knowns and unknown knowns and then all would be happy.

Meantime..I'll try to give some considered thought about those who intentionally suck the blood from others - poor lambs - and those who just don't appreciate how lucky they are to be stinking rich and not feel obliged to ask the taxpayer - Joe Public - to contribute to their life of idleness other than pavements and pretty beds of pelargoniums and dahlias etc.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You are slipping. You forgot: Breathing the same air. Feeling the rain, snow, sunlight. Seeing trees and rivers and oh so many more things.
> 
> Who knows what contributions they make toward society? You don't know and nor do I. We could launch off into a bit of Rumsfeld tortured linguistics - so beloved of Urban - the known knowns and unknown knowns and then all would be happy.
> 
> Meantime..I'll try to give some considered thought about those who intentionally suck the blood from others - poor lambs - and those who just don't appreciate how lucky they are to be stinking rich and not feel obliged to ask the taxpayer - Joe Public - to contribute to their life if idleness other than pavements etc.


 
you fucking prick


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You are slipping. You forgot: Breathing the same air. Feeling the rain, snow, sunlight. Seeing trees and rivers and oh so many more things.
> 
> Who knows what contributions they make toward society? You don't know and nor do I. We could launch off into a bit of Rumsfeld tortured linguistics - so beloved of Urban - the known knowns and unknown knowns and then all would be happy.
> 
> Meantime..I'll try to give some *considered thought about those* *who intentionally suck the blood from others* - poor lambs - and those who just don't appreciate how lucky they are to be stinking rich and not feel obliged to ask the taxpayer - Joe Public - to contribute to their life if idleness other than pavements etc.


 
You what?   Not going to answer then?  

As for the bit in bold enjoy wanking over Cameron.


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Well wise ones, whatever your political ideology, are you really saying that _The State_ should carry such people? They should shelter and feed them for 14 or more years without making any claim on them to make some contribution to society? Are we really so affluent that we can provide for such people without making any demands on them whatsoever?
> .



Easy. Yes, yes and yes.

Next question?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Hang on, you're the one saying "fuck society" here. Looking after kids full time is a fairly fucking important part of society!


 
Yes, who said it isn't? See above post regards the other members of society who bring up children and dare I say the word.....work!?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Improve my medical condition???????? IMPROVE!!!????????!!!!! 

My spine is slowly falling apart due to arthritis - don't see how that can be 'improved', and I was fucking born with only one kidney, you clueless privileged cock Cameron, how do you think I can improve that? I'm sure my consultant would love to know too, given that in 18 years the best diagnosis he's come up with is chronic renal disease and which, you've guessed it, is unlikely to get better, seeing as I can't spontaneously regrow a missing organ and the remaining one is impaired.

Fucking twat.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Yes, who said it isn't? See above post regards the other members of society who bring up children and dare I say the word.....work!?


 
You're scum.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Yes, who said it isn't? See above post regards the other members of society who bring up children and dare I say the word.....work!?


 
working contributes to society
bringing up children contributes to society
splitting your time between working and bringing up children contributes to society

what is the difference I'm supposed to be spotting?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Leaving aside some of the rhetoric and even the mature, considered responses I'd appreciate a response to this:
> 
> I've worked all my life delivering services to the public and bringing up my own family. My work was in the community with what were colloquially known as 'Sin-Bins' (horrid expression) or Pupil Referral Units. It was demanding but it certainly afforded insights into lots of things. Invariably most of the youngsters were 'victims' of seriously fucked up parents who you wouldn't trust with a pet spider let alone another human being.
> 
> ...


 
But she doesn't. She'd have been compelled into one of the Work Programme set-ups once her youngest turned 12, and would be constantly churned through them until she got a job, so she has to do a fair bit more than "sit here and wait for my DWP money", including making enough of an effort on any programme she's put on so that she doesn't get sanctioned.



> Well wise ones, whatever your political ideology, are you really saying that _The State_ should carry such people? They should shelter and feed them for 14 or more years without making any claim on them to make some contribution to society? Are we really so affluent that we can provide for such people without making any demands on them whatsoever? I am not, by the way, talking about an individual(s) who has a specific health problem. I am talking about somebody who doesn't give a fuck about anybody else other than themselves.


 
I'd rather pay for 100,000 (the number of core "work-avoiders" fluctuates between 80,000-120,000) anti-social couldn't-give-a-fuckers on the off-chance of even a small percentage of their kids turning out slightly better than if their mother was *totally* skint and put them in care, than do nothing. Simple as that. If you want to be part of society (that's _human_ society, not "the big society"), you have to take the rough with the smooth. The total volume of benefits pisstake and social chaos caused by the people you're talking about is small compared to the damage done every time one of our so-called leaders sets a bad example.



> Like it or lump it the above feeds the_ Mail_ with its stories but can you really defend what I would consider is indefensible?


 
I can, until the fucking cows come home.



> I don't know what you idea of nirvana is but mine would not be one in which the burden of fit and healthy individuals are carried by others. Yes, yes I know we do that already with the rich but does that excuse those who don't have the wealth from doing the same? A parasite is a parasite.


 
I don't know whether you've any interest in biology, but the thing about parasites is that they're usually very careful about the demand they put on the system that they parasitise. They don't take more than they can get away with, and often have a beneficial effect. In your case the beneficial effect of these parasites appears to be your sense of moral superiority. Just think how barren you'd feel if you had no-one to look down on! 



> I'll ignore any 'workist' shit because 99.9% of those who want to screw the system are not that much different from the rich who do the same. And make no mistake they certainly do not subscribe to anything that remotely connects with organised community politics - yours or mine.


 
Of course not, but that's not really the point, is it? The point is whether we're big enough to soak up a bit of "parasitism", or small enough to condemn it, and/or use it as an excuse to cane other others too.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> As for the bit in bold enjoy wanking over Cameron.


 
That is where you are so wrong, so very wrong. Any idiot, and you are not an idiot, would find it easy to stick the blame on any party or politician. Instead answer this. Would any self-governing, small commune who had shared values be prepared to carry dead wood - if you'll forgive the term?

And on a micro level, how many families do you know are prepared to support without qualification their son or daughter living a life of indolence for no particular reason - assuming work is available?


----------



## weepiper (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> But she doesn't. She'd have been compelled into one of the Work Programme set-ups *once her youngest turned 12*, and would be constantly churned through them until she got a job, so she has to do a fair bit more than "sit here and wait for my DWP money", including making enough of an effort on any programme she's put on so that she doesn't get sanctioned.


 
It's 5, now. And if Cameron gets his way it's going to be 3 soon.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> That is where you are so wrong, so very wrong. Any idiot, and you are not an idiot, would find it easy to stick the blame on any party or politician. Instead answer this. Would any self-governing, small commune who had shared values be prepared to carry dead wood - if you'll forgive the term?
> 
> And on a micro level, how many families do you know are prepared to support without qualification their son or daughter living a life of indolence for no particular reason?


 
What sort of ethos, philosophy and values do you have that you consider people bringing up children dead wood? 

Is a family a self-governing small commune with shared values because in many of them one partner has a job while another stays home and looks after the children.  Or in your rhetoric one partner carries the dead wood.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> That is where you are so wrong, so very wrong. Any idiot, and you are not an idiot, would find it easy to stick the blame on any party or politician. Instead answer this. Would any self-governing, small commune who had shared values be prepared to carry dead wood - if you'll forgive the term?
> 
> And on a micro level, how many families do you know are prepared to support without qualification their son or daughter living a life of indolence for no particular reason - assuming work is available?


 
Hang on, explain how being a full time parent is being "dead wood"?  You appear to be guilty cos you never looked after your own kids maybe, preferring to be at work instead.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Both of you note:



> ... carry dead wood if you'll forgive the term?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Both of you note:


 
fuck off


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I agree Mungy they are indeed in a minority but my goodness the media latch on to them and thus scar all the genuine claimants such as kids leaving care, those seeking independent living because of health problems. Root them out and the media will have to turn its eye elsewhere.


 
If only life were that simple. If your "parasites" didn't exist, a problem would be invented, or a minor social harm would be inflated out of proportion in order to give our leaders and the media something to rail against. Cast your mind back over the last 20 years - how many over-inflated moral panics have there been, where the reality has turned out to be so much less awful than the prognostications made about it?

This is, as always, primarily about class.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Both of you note:


 
I do not forgive the term.


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2012)

Dead wood, like parasites, is an essential part of the ecosystem.

http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/ecological/deadwood.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

weepiper said:


> It's 5, now. And if Cameron gets his way it's going to be 3 soon.


 
I know.  Just looked it up. 

Still, it's fine to give w/c 3-year olds what'll amount to developmental stunting. It's not like any of us ever go on to university or actually do anything useful with our lives, is it?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> What sort of ethos, philosophy and values do you have that you consider people bringing up children dead wood?


 
You really are struggling with this aren't you? You appear not to understand the difference with a parent(s) working and bringing up children and another parent(s) not working and bringing up children.

So tell me in the case of the latter where do they get their money from to bring up the children, house, clothe and feed them? Add to that the provision of all the other services. 

If you are saying that bringing up children is to be valued are you not discriminating against those who work or are you being deliberately over simplistic and reducing it to just bringing up children? 

Your philosophy could be interpreted as: Fuck it! Anybody with children doesn't have to work - period.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> From one estate alone twenty. You don't need to do door-to-door surveys. Visit to 'community groups' provides the evidence.


 
So, not even the slight possibility that if you're with your mates, you might be indulging in bravado?
Of course not.



> Regardless, one, like Vodafone, is one too many unless of course you are so altruistic you don't mind carnying dead weight.


 
Dead weight; useless mouths; final solution to the parasite problem...


----------



## scifisam (Jun 26, 2012)

Where is this area of the country where it's common to get given a three-bedroom semi-detached house just for having two kids, and you never get any hassle for your income support?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

wtfftw said:


> unicorns.


 
You're too polite for your own good.


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Fuck it! Anybody with children doesn't have to work - period.



Society would be in a much better state if this was the case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

scifisam said:


> Where is this area of the country where it's common to get given a three-bedroom semi-detached house just for having two kids, and you never get any hassle for your income support?


 
It's that part of Surrey known as cloud-cuckoo-land.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You really are struggling with this aren't you? You appear not to understand the difference with a parent(s) working and bringing up children and another parent(s) not working and bringing up children.
> 
> So tell me in the case of the latter where do they get their money from to bring up the children, house, clothe and feed them? Add to that the provision of all the other services.
> 
> ...


 
you are being really fucking insulting


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I see. You know these particular people too? You have met them? You know all their personal biographies or is it that you are so fucking myopic that the first thing you do is exactly the same as the _Mail_ in that you make an uncorroborated comment. Knee jerks are not exclusive to the right.
> 
> I selected one family. Some have more than two children. Others have one. But they all share the same common feature - fuck society, why should we work? We is happy with our lot - relatively.
> 
> And don't even make the mistake of thinking they are 'the working class'.


 
Why not? Are you "class arbiter"? Who appointed you? Not me, that's for fucking sure!


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> What ethos? What philosophy? What values?
> 
> Where did you get them from?


TBF I misread that as Eton, philosophy, values.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You really are struggling with this aren't you? You appear not to understand the difference with a parent(s) working and bringing up children and another parent(s) not working and bringing up children.
> 
> So tell me in the case of the latter where do they get their money from to bring up the children, house, clothe and feed them? Add to that the provision of all the other services.
> 
> ...


 
its called society - fuck off and join the tory party


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Hang on, explain how being a full time parent is being "dead wood"? You appear to be guilty cos you never looked after your own kids maybe, preferring to be at work instead.


 
Your wild assumptions, just like the rain, slowly evaporate into nothingnesses. Pity because I like the rain.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> its called society - fuck off and join the tory party


 
But whose society? The little _clique _within a _clique_ know as Urban?


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2012)

Rain doesn't evaporate into "nothingness".

I'd lay off the science/ecology analogies if I were you, you're getting them all wrong...


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Your wild assumptions, just like the rain, slowly evaporate into nothingnesses. Pity because I like the rain.



You're one anti-social little prick.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

You've really pissed me off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> So fucking what? Its their choice, why do you have a problem with it?


 
Because "his" taxes are paying for them.
That's the usual cry of the congenitally-stupid fuckers who get a hate on for people whose circumstances have pretty much militated that they couldn't be anything but what they are.
Of course, the old "my taxes" bollocks is...well...bollocks. Part of the whole "social compact" idea is that you pay _X_ to ensure a minimal social safety net for *everyone*, not just for "taxpayers", but *everyone*.
And the reason this is done, a reason that utterly escapes the neoliberals, but that was firmly grasped by their predecessors, is that a little bit of jam buys an awful lot of goodwill, in terms of facilitating social control.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Its the assumption that looking after kids isn't work that fucking riles me.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 26, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Even If I were to take your so-called evidence at face value, what would you want to do to her? Sterilise any "female" like that one? Remove her children and put them in care (which BTW would work out more expensive than leaving them with their mum)? Force her children (who didn't ask to be conceived, let alone born) to sleep 3 to a bed and 6 to a room?
> 
> Edited to add: Zabo, it is precisely attitudes like yours which have deprived young women like the one you described of hope and any chance of improving their lives. If you don't want them to get pregnant early, you have to offer them something more to look forward to than working all hours in a soul-destroying dead-end job. If you don't want them to "sit around", good quality free (state funded) childcare, with well trained staff, and which fits with fulltime working hours must be provided. Are you willing to fund that?


 

This post more or less nails it, but fuck it, I'm going to stick my oar in anyway.

I'm sure you will be able to find people who say "fuck it, why should I work", but AFAIC, all that illustrates is the paucity of what these people are being offered if they feel that a lifetime on benefits is the best they can hope for. Plus they may well be making a virtue out of a necessity, in realising that there may well be very little hope for any kind of meaningful work & a lifetime on benefits probably _is_ the best option. So the solution is, quite clearly, to take their benefits away ffs


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because "his" taxes are paying for them.
> That's the usual cry of the congenitally-stupid fuckers who get a hate on for people whose circumstances have pretty much militated that they couldn't be anything but what they are.
> Of course, the old "my taxes" bollocks is...well...bollocks. Part of the whole "social compact" idea is that you pay _X_ to ensure a minimal social safety net for *everyone*, not just for "taxpayers", but *everyone*.
> And the reason this is done, a reason that utterly escapes the neoliberals, but that was firmly grasped by their predecessors, is that a little bit of jam buys an awful lot of goodwill, in terms of facilitating social control.



Aye.

They never, ever, pause to consider how unsustainable capitalism (and thus their relative privilege) would be if they actually enacted all these daft ideas.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Ethos, philosophy, values.


 
Interesting. You attribute your desire to "Not sit at home on benefits" to purely positive character traits.
Of course, reality is that for most people, the reason they don't so so is entirely instrumental, and has less than fuck-all to do with "ethos", "philosophy" or "values", and an awful lot to do with instrumentality. Basically, you want a more-than-minimal existence, so you work to achieve it.
But hey, if it cheers you up to believe it's all about what a fine ethical person you are, preserve the illusion!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 26, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I know somebody like that, personally, Zabo. I wouldn't want to see her kids go hungry, so I could never support any sort of sanction against her; why should her children suffer for what is a minimal cost compared to how much the ultra wealthy cost us in tax avoidance? I don't believe anybody should be sanctioned; everybody has a right to a warm, dry dwelling, heat, food etc.
> 
> I think you also have to think about what these phrases really mean. When somebody says 'I can't be bothered' do they really mean it? Or do they mean 'I don't have the confidence to do that' or 'I've never done that before' or 'I'm afraid I'll fail'. If you've not long left school and then suddenly had a few kids, the world of work, and looking for work can be an absolutely terrifying prospect. Or if you've never finished school or been in a bit of trouble with the law or whatever, going back into education can be equally terrifying. Wouldn't it be better to make the choice to access real support (not support with the constant fear of sanction overhead) better, instead of judging them as scroungers and using them as a stick to beat everybody else with? I think so.


 
Very true, I'm convinced a lot of people who say they don't want to work say it out of a kind of bravado or as a defense mechanism or somesuch.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Yes, who said it isn't? See above post regards the other members of society who bring up children and dare I say the word.....work!?


What do you have to say about children brought up neglected because their parents work too much?

Are you aware that our wealth is our resources, our work and our technology? But that our technology is now so good that future growth will probably not bring more work? And why should it? 

This is a time, in our VERY FUCKING WEALTHY society (despite the recessions), for everyone to do less work. I propose a citizens wage to enable more people to sit around enjoying the fruits of our wealthy society.

And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the layabouts and scroungers of this world for not contributing to the ever greater competition for ever fewer decent jobs. They have made this world better, though perhaps they didn't know it (and perhaps they did). A shout-out too to all the mothers who realised they had the chance to raise their children without working. They are heroes, the farsighted ones who understood that work is not a good in itself but that love is.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You really are struggling with this aren't you? You appear not to understand the difference with a parent(s) working and bringing up children and another parent(s) not working and bringing up children.
> 
> So tell me in the case of the latter where do they get their money from to bring up the children, house, clothe and feed them? Add to that the provision of all the other services.
> 
> ...


 
Struggling with what?  

What sort of ethos, philosophy and values do you have that you consider people who bring up children dead wood? 

Yes I'm saying bringing up children is to be valued.  Is that controversial in your universe?  In what way is that discriminating against those who work?  Reducing _what_ to just bringing up children?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 26, 2012)

PS I am aware that in that post I have ignored the workers round the world we rely on - but then Zabo doesn't care about them or he wouldn't suggest that single mothers _steal their jobs. _


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Improve my medical condition???????? IMPROVE!!!????????!!!!!
> 
> My spine is slowly falling apart due to arthritis - don't see how that can be 'improved', and I was fucking born with only one kidney, you clueless privileged cock Cameron, how do you think I can improve that? I'm sure my consultant would love to know too, given that in 18 years the best diagnosis he's come up with is chronic renal disease and which, you've guessed it, is unlikely to get better, seeing as I can't spontaneously regrow a missing organ and the remaining one is impaired.
> 
> Fucking twat.


 
Shame on you. You're just making excuses!

*Why* can't you spontaneously grow your missing kidney?  I bet you haven't even tried!


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Well wise ones, whatever your political ideology, are you really saying that _The State_ should carry such people?


I think that if _The State_ wants to run our lives then it should do a better job of providing people with greater aspirations and opportunities than that young woman had.  And if it fails to do so, then yes it should bear the consequences and support them.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You are slipping. You forgot: Breathing the same air. Feeling the rain, snow, sunlight. Seeing trees and rivers and oh so many more things. I mean, how dare they just walk through a council park and enjoy the beauty of the flower beds put in by the council's grafters! Bastards!
> 
> Who knows what contributions they make toward society? You don't know and nor do I. We could launch off into a bit of Rumsfeld tortured linguistics - so beloved of Urban - the known knowns and unknown knowns and then all would be happy.
> 
> Meantime..I'll try to give some considered thought about those who intentionally suck the blood from others - poor lambs - and those who just don't appreciate how lucky they are to be stinking rich and not feel obliged to ask the taxpayer - Joe Public - to contribute to their life of idleness other than pavements and pretty beds of pelargoniums and dahlias etc.


The rich suck the blood from society more than those of any benefits ever could. 

They don't pay always what they should, just because they're not taking in the form of benefits doesn't mean they're not taking something, for example,  the private doctors they see will most likely have been trained in an NHS hospital, as the private healthcare sector in the UK does not train any medical or medical-related staff.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> This post more or less nails it, but fuck it, I'm going to stick my oar in anyway.
> 
> I'm sure you will be able to find people who say "fuck it, why should I work", but AFAIC, all that illustrates is the paucity of what these people are being offered if they feel that a lifetime on benefits is the best they can hope for. Plus they may well be making a virtue out of a necessity, in realising that there may well be very little hope for any kind of meaningful work & a lifetime on benefits probably _is_ the best option. So the solution is, quite clearly, to take their benefits away ffs


 
Is this some kind of lame apology? Where have I said remove their benefits?  I haven't. You of course, make outlandish assumptions that you know all the reasons and explanations why some - not all - don't work. You have a litany of reasons and excuses but I would suggest they are all in your mind and are not the thoughts of those who don't work.

You do not know that  they make ' virtue out of a necessity'. Nor do you know what their hopes and aspirations are. In fact you really are taking being a patronising fucker to a new height.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Corax said:


> I think that if _The State_ wants to run our lives then it should do a better job of providing people with greater aspirations and opportunities than that young woman had. And if it fails to do so, then yes it should bear the consequences and support them.


 
Good comment Corax.  Please identify _The State._


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Is this some kind of lame apology? Where have I said remove their benefits? I haven't. You of course, make outlandish assumptions that you know all the reasons and explanations why some - not all - don't work. You have a litany of reasons and excuses but I would suggest they are all in your mind and are not the thoughts of those who don't work.
> 
> You do not know that they make ' virtue out of a necessity'. Nor do you know what their hopes and aspirations are. In fact you really are taking being a patronising fucker to a new height.


 
What makes you think that raising kids isn't work?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Shame on you. You're just making excuses!
> 
> *Why* can't you spontaneously grow your missing kidney?  I bet you haven't even tried!


 
Pure greed VP.  She wants two.  As if one wasn't enough


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Good comment Corax. Please identify _The State._


It's pretty much what Greebo and others have already said.

It was your term, the definition would be more appropriate coming from you.


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're too polite for your own good.


I was just joining in the absurdity.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> What makes you think that raising kids isn't work?


 
You'll have to quote me specifically as to where I have said that bringing up children isn't hard work. 

Get on with it then.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You'll have to quote me specifically as to where I have said that bringing up children isn't hard work.
> 
> Get on with it then.


 




Zabo said:


> Leaving aside some of the rhetoric and even the mature, considered responses I'd appreciate a response to this:
> 
> I've worked all my life delivering services to the public and bringing up my own family. My work was in the community with what were colloquially known as 'Sin-Bins' (horrid expression) or Pupil Referral Units. It was demanding but it certainly afforded insights into lots of things. Invariably most of the youngsters were 'victims' of seriously fucked up parents who you wouldn't trust with a pet spider let alone another human being.
> 
> ...


 
There ya go.

Now justify it.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Is this some kind of lame apology? Where have I said remove their benefits? I haven't. You of course, make outlandish assumptions that you know all the reasons and explanations why some - not all - don't work. You have a litany of reasons and excuses but I would suggest they are all in your mind and are not the thoughts of those who don't work.
> 
> You do not know that they make ' virtue out of a necessity'. Nor do you know what their hopes and aspirations are. In fact you really are taking being a patronising fucker to a new height.


 
Apology for what? Your dads gaping sphincter? Nowt to do with me, that. Ask him what he does with those pickled eggs.

Anyway, this is bullshit, benefit legislation is not (and nor should be) based on one (quite possibly fictitious) feckless woman who Zabo professes to know. We all know someone in the pub who's brother in law gets full DLA but works as a professional footballer - It's all bollocks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> That is where you are so wrong, so very wrong. Any idiot, and you are not an idiot, would find it easy to stick the blame on any party or politician. Instead answer this. Would any self-governing, small commune who had shared values be prepared to carry dead wood...


 
Kropotkin managed to answer this one nicely over 100 years ago. I suggest you read "The Conquest of Bread". It's an easy read, not full of abstruse political argument and theory, just a straightforward exposition of how a communism could work.



> - if you'll forgive the term?


 
I really don't think so.



> And on a micro level, how many families do you know are prepared to support without qualification their son or daughter living a life of indolence for no particular reason - assuming work is available?


 
Big assumption. Even in so-called boom times in the last 4 decades, we've never approached a situation where, even nominally, "full employment" has been within 500,000 jobs of attainment. Our current economic mode is entirely predicated on preserving a large untapped pool of labour, not because those untapped human resources are needed for employment, but because they act as a lever by which to ensure that *working labour* doesn't get too uppity.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Shame on you. You're just making excuses!
> 
> *Why* can't you spontaneously grow your missing kidney?  I bet you haven't even tried!


You are right, of course, I haven't tried to grow my own kidney.

That would definitely get me _null points_ from ATOS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> TBF I misread that as Eton, philosophy, values.


 
To be fair, with what zabo has written, they're pretty much interchangeable.


----------



## captainmission (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> And so I have this question from a real situation. A female gets intentionally/accidentally pregnant. Acquires a council flat. Three years later she decides to have another child by another unknown father - as far as the CSA is concerned. She then effects a transfer from a two bedroomed flat to a three bedroomed semi-detached house. All is well.
> 
> Fourteen years later she has never done a days work - except for 'bringing up' the children. She tells a part-time boyfriend who has just been made redundant he should get a new job. He replies: 'What about you getting a job?' She says she doesn't have to work because: 'I All have to do is sit here and wait for my DWP money to go into my account each month - laughter.'


 
What you're saying there would make no sense under current benefits or housing allocation rules or those of of the last 14 years. 

For a start being a pregnant woman would give no automatic entitlement to a council flat. Having a further child wouldn't give her entitlement to a larger house. Children under one would be expect to sleep in parents room, any two children of different sex will be expected to share a room until 10, any two children of same sex would be expected to share room to age 16. In terms of legal duty to rehouse her a local authoirty only has to do that in cases overcrowding which means children under one are discounted entirely and all avaialabe rooms minus kitchens and bathrooms will be consdier a suitable bedroom. I supose it could have been on grounds if it was a high rised flat that could have been unsuitable for young children, but otherwise it seem her local authority was just awash with empty social housing and was throwing it out like candy.

In terms of her benefits as a single parent she could have claimed income support, the princely sum of £71 wk, up until the children were 6 (all this use to be 11). Unless she had a disablity or was full time carer for someone with a severe disability she could have got income support past this point. Which if we're looking at children aged 17 and 14 (the three years later and 14 years later, that's a long time to sit in snearing judgement btw) means she most likely would she would have been on JSA - ie had a requirement to look for work -for a considerable time. By the DWP figure out of the millions claiming JSA only around 5,000 have done so for for a period of 5 or more years. So if that was the case she'd be part of a very small group.

I'm also  curious about part time BF (part time! the slut!) If he was living with her as a couple and working more than 20 hrs a wk she wouldn't have been entitled to any work replacement benefit like JSA or income support. They may have still got child tax and working tax, but then even nice repectable people with job for the LEA get that. Are we infact talking about a couple that lived of one persons wage?

What's interesting is if we look at what happens if single parent like your feckless hussie gets work. Well a single parent with 2 children (receiving income support housing benefit and council tax benefit) is gets a job working minimum wage for 16hrs wk means the state pays out only £10-15 pound less in benefits each week. Most saving made by not paying income support are lost due to increased tax credit payments. At this wage level a worker would pay no income tax or NI. Increasing hours for full time means more saving for the state... until child care cost (paid in part through tax credits) are taken into account. For 2 children the state will pay out upto 70% of £300 child care a week. So forcing single parents into work can actually result in a net cost to the state- which makes you think that benefit reforms might not be cutting costs but perhaps say... providing a larger and demoralised pool of labour.

So maybeyour not as informed about this ladies finacial situation as you think, which is strange considering her and her BF invite you round to over hear conversations about their financial situations...

P.s. how many boyfriends/girlfriends have you had over a 14 year period?


----------



## campanula (Jun 26, 2012)

benefits eh - a subsidy for landlords (housing benefit) and a subsidy for employers (tax credits). The latest wheeze was surely dreamed up to avoid searching tax evasion questions as it is so utterly unworkable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> But whose society? The little _clique _within a _clique_ know as Urban?


 
Oh wow, you're so fucking deluded you see yourself as a brave crusader against the "monothought clique"! 

You pious wanker!!


----------



## Mungy (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Sadly, they would not be joining you in wanting to challenge the system. That would be too much like hard work.
> 
> Horrid cliché but two wrongs....etc.


 
I would challenge the system for them so they can continue their life. A life on benefits is hardly a life at all, but if that is what they choose then I would want to make sure they had a roof over their heads and food on the table. They are human beings dammit, not some statistic, some dehumanised figure that can be mocked and derided. They are humans. People.

I bet they have hopes and dreams beyond what they have. Give people real chances and they will blossom. People who want out of the trap need to be helped to achieve their goals.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh wow, you're so fucking deluded you see yourself as a brave crusader against the "monothought clique"!
> 
> You pious wanker!!


 
did this Zabo cunt used to post as Nigel on here?  He had the same reactionary right wing views, posing as a socialist


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Mungy. I enjoy reading your posts. Very human.

Interesting how some people can show compassion despite having different perspectives but equally interesting/disturbing are the Urban Cunts who are beyond compassion and instead like to wank off with their distorted perceptions of reality along with their ceaseless patronising comments. I mean...who the fuck elected them to speak on behalf of the lumpen proletariat?

More power to you fingers Mungy.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 26, 2012)

captainmission said:


> What you're saying there would make no sense under current benefits or housing allocation rules or those of of the last 14 years.
> 
> For a start being a pregnant woman would give no automatic entitlement to a council flat. Having a further child wouldn't give her entitlement to a larger house. Children under one would be expect to sleep in parents room, any two children of different sex will be expected to share a room until 10, any two children of same sex would be expected to share room to age 16. In terms of legal duty to rehouse her a local authoirty only has to do that in cases overcrowding which means children under one are discounted entirely and all avaialabe rooms minus kitchens and bathrooms will be consdier a suitable bedroom. I supose it could have been on grounds if it was a high rised flat that could have been unsuitable for young children, but otherwise it seem her local authority was just awash with empty social housing and was throwing it out like candy.
> 
> ...


 


Like I said. Horseshit.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Mungy. I enjoy reading your posts. Very human.
> 
> Interesting how some people can show compassion despite having different perspectives but equalyy interesting are the Urban Cunts who are beyond compassion and instead like to wank off with their distrotetd perceptions of reality.
> 
> More power to you fingers Mungy.


 
ironic


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Its the assumption that looking after kids isn't work that fucking riles me.


 
Don't have any of our own, but I'm good with kids and I've enough younger siblings and cousins to know that even basic childcare is fucking exhausting if they're younger than about 5. I can't imagine how hard raising a kid is, and to be frank, I'd rather not imagine it!


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Mungy. I enjoy reading your posts. Very human.


C'mon, don't resort to merely spitting at the hostile and hugging the non-hostile.

What did you mean by _The State _then? That you posed that question to me when I used your term leads me to presume you have some thoughts on it.

Edit: Oh dear, that post was edited for the worse after I quoted.  I suspect the involvement of beer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Very true, I'm convinced a lot of people who say they don't want to work say it out of a kind of bravado or as a defense mechanism or somesuch.


 
Yep, seen it more than a few times, where people chat that shit, then as soon as they're offered a bit of casual, or a "real job" where they'll be just about breaking even, they grab it with both hands.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Seriously Corax. I do like his posts. Not just intelligent but missing the all the usual Urban ingredients - _spits._ Very refreshing.

You drink beer?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You've really pissed me off.


Yeah, me too 

What about people who have children together and split up? Do you think ALL of the non-resident parents support their children adequately? Do you think they ensure their children have a warm, safe roof over their heads, with food on the table, clothing, shoes, maybe some toys and books? Because I can assure you that they don't.

And what if one of the parent dies? Is the other just supposed work and look after their child(ren)? What if these children are below school age, how is childcare supposed to be paid for? Do you think a basic office job pays enough for child care as well as food, housing, bills etc? You're seriously ill-informed if you do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Struggling with what?
> 
> What sort of ethos, philosophy and values do you have that you consider people who bring up children dead wood?
> 
> Yes I'm saying bringing up children is to be valued. Is that controversial in your universe? In what way is that discriminating against those who work? Reducing _what_ to just bringing up children?


 
Pah, you are a foolish liberal, Fraulein quimcunx. Isn't it obvious what his ethos, philosophy and values must be? Doesn't everyone know that merely "bringing up children" is worthless, that only bringing them up for the Reich has value?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2012)

Corax said:


> Edit: Oh dear, that post was edited for the worse after I quoted. I suspect the involvement of beer.


 
Perhaps a more psychodelic drug?




ViolentPanda said:


> Pah, you are a foolish liberal, Fraulein quimcunx. Isn't it obvious what his ethos, philosophy and values must be? Doesn't everyone know that merely "bringing up children" is worthless, that only bringing them up for the Reich has value?


 
Arbeit Macht Frei, Rodders, Arbeit Macht Frei.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Pure greed VP. She wants two. As if one wasn't enough


I want to be part of the wealthy 'two kidneyed' elite, I am entitled, dammit!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> You are right, of course, I haven't tried to grow my own kidney.
> 
> That would definitely get me _null points_ from ATOS.


 
Zabo has probably already pre-emptively grassed you, just in case.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I want to be part of the wealthy 'two kidneyed' elite, I am entitled, dammit!


 
But the two-kidneyed elite aren't elite, they're in the majority.  Consider yourself special 

In fact, you're so special, someone will probably buy your kidney off you for a nice lump sum


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> did this Zabo cunt used to post as Nigel on here? He had the same reactionary right wing views, posing as a socialist


 
Nope, Nigel still posts as Nigel.
TBFm he has comedy value. Recalling the time he issued a death-threat to me by PM when I made an off-colour comment about his mother's professional credentials still brings a smile to my face.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> But the two-kidneyed elite aren't elite, they're in the majority. Consider yourself special
> 
> In fact, you're so special, someone will probably buy your kidney off you for a nice lump sum


Then I'd be dead and sadly, as much as I love sidney, he's not prime black market organ material anyway.

I'd best just struggle on


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Mungy. I enjoy reading your posts. Very human.
> 
> Interesting how some people can show compassion despite having different perspectives but equally interesting/disturbing are the Urban Cunts who are beyond compassion and instead like to wank off with their distorted perceptions of reality along with their ceaseless patronising comments. I mean...who the fuck elected them to speak on behalf of the lumpen proletariat?
> 
> More power to you fingers Mungy.


 
That little rant gives a fascinating insight into your psyche, but possibly one you'd have been better-off not exposing, you deluded paranoid gobshite.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Seriously Corax. I do like his posts. Not just intelligent but missing the all the usual Urban ingredients - _spits._ Very refreshing.


I'm sure you do, but you entered into a discussion and now you're diving off after tangents to avoid continuing it.  It's not becoming.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Then I'd be dead and sadly, as much as I love sidney, he's not prime black market organ material anyway.
> 
> I'd best just struggle on


 
But at least you wouldn't be a burden on the welfare state


----------



## campanula (Jun 26, 2012)

mmmm, that all-important rarity value.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Then I'd be dead and sadly, as much as I love sidney, he's not prime black market organ material anyway.
> 
> I'd best just struggle on


 
Have you seen the episode in season 6 of "Supernatural" where a woman has a haunted transplanted kidney? You could haunt Sidney!


----------



## weepiper (Jun 26, 2012)

captainmission said:


> What's interesting is if we look at what happens if single parent like your feckless hussie gets work. Well a single parent with 2 children (receiving income support housing benefit and council tax benefit) is gets a job working minimum wage for 16hrs wk means the state pays out only £10-15 pound less in benefits each week. Most saving made by not paying income support are lost due to increased tax credit payments. At this wage level a worker would pay no income tax or NI. Increasing hours for full time means more saving for the state... until child care cost (paid in part through tax credits) are taken into account. For 2 children the state will pay out upto 70% of £300 child care a week. So forcing single parents into work can actually result in a net cost to the state- which makes you think that benefit reforms might not be cutting costs but perhaps say... providing a larger and demoralised pool of labour.


 
Very good summary. Would just add that the feckless hussy will not even see very much extra herself by working. I work 16 hours a week as a single parent with three kids. In quite a skilled job, paid £2.50 an hour more than minimum wage. I worked out after I pay for nursery and after school club for the kids and my Housing Benefit has some taken off that I'm only £30 a week better off than I would be if I was 'sitting at home' on Income Support so effectively I actually work for £1.87 an hour. Which isn't terribly attractive tbh and sometimes I wonder if it's really worth the hassle of getting all the kids to their various drop-off points and making them stay up later those two nights because we don't get home til 6pm so tea is later and there's no time to do homework etc etc. It's just as well I like my job. If I wasn't lucky enough to have a desirable skill and my only options were till work at a supermarket or similar it definitely wouldn't feel worth it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you seen the episode in season 6 of "Supernatural" where a woman has a haunted transplanted kidney? You could haunt Sidney!


 
I forgot to ask who Sidney was


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> ironic


 
Nah, more like what Ian Hislop would term "arselikhan".


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

campanula said:


> mmmm, that all-important rarity value.


 
I prefer them cooked myself (well I would if I actually liked offal)


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I prefer them cooked myself (well I would if I actually liked offal)


 



Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I forgot to ask who Sidney was


Sidney the kidney


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I want to be part of the wealthy 'two kidneyed' elite, I am entitled, dammit!


 
Ah, the typical sense of entitlement of the health underclass!


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> But the two-kidneyed elite aren't elite, they're in the majority. Consider yourself special
> 
> In fact, you're so special, someone will probably buy your kidney off you for a nice lump sum


Doesn't get you any ATOS points, being special.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Sidney the kidney


 
Oh I see.  You're like one of those people who have a tumour and they give it a name! 

Except your kidney's not a tumour


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Oh I see. You're like one of those people who have a tumour and they give it a name!
> 
> Except your kidney's not a tumour


Tumour = bad
Kidney = good


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Doesn't get you any ATOS points, being special.


 
Tight bastards.  Those points are rarer than Lonesome George


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Tumour = bad
> Kidney = good


 
Two Sidneys = Even better

What would you call your other one if you had two?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I forgot to ask who Sidney was


eq's kidney.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 26, 2012)

I'm a bit curious that in one way Zabo's argument (if we wish it to work both ways) in fact would give non-taxpayers the right to completely ignore the state - ok so perhaps their kids wouldn't be able to read, and with no antibiotics mortality would be high but since they aren't contributing to the police they would also (correct me if I'm wrong) be free to act as modern day highwaypersons with no risk of any interference from the law. They would of course get about on unregistered dirt bikes as they wouldn't be free to use the roads that the taxpayers had funded as well. 



ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, Nigel still posts as Nigel.
> TBFm he has comedy value. Recalling the time he issued a death-threat to me by PM when I made an off-colour comment about his mother's professional credentials still brings a smile to my face.


Was it something about her doing 'A-levels' perchance?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2012)

Highwaypersons


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Was it something about her doing 'A-levels' perchance?


 
Depends what the "A" stands for, to be honest.


----------



## captainmission (Jun 26, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Very good summary. Would just add that the feckless hussy will not even see very much extra herself by working. I work 16 hours a week as a single parent with three kids. In quite a skilled job, paid £2.50 an hour more than minimum wage. I worked out after I pay for nursery and after school club for the kids and my Housing Benefit has some taken off that I'm only £30 a week better off than I would be if I was 'sitting at home' on Income Support so effectively I actually work for £1.87 an hour. Which isn't terribly attractive tbh and sometimes I wonder if it's really worth the hassle of getting all the kids to their various drop-off points and making them stay up later those two nights because we don't get home til 6pm so tea is later and there's no time to do homework etc etc. It's just as well I like my job. If I wasn't lucky enough to have a desirable skill and my only options were till work at a supermarket or similar it definitely wouldn't feel worth it.


 
but poor people being economically rational is immoral!


----------



## Mephitic (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because "his" taxes are paying for them.
> That's the usual cry of the congenitally-stupid fuckers who get a hate on for people whose circumstances have pretty much militated that they couldn't be anything but what they are.
> Of course, the old "my taxes" bollocks is...well...bollocks. Part of the whole "social compact" idea is that you pay _X_ to ensure a minimal social safety net for *everyone*, not just for "taxpayers", but *everyone*.
> And the reason this is done, a reason that utterly escapes the neoliberals, but that was firmly grasped by their predecessors, is that a little bit of jam buys an awful lot of goodwill, in terms of facilitating social control.


 
Ohhhhhh..... So, let me see if I've got this straight...  because he's a public sector worker and in-the-know, he somehow resents the taxes that he pays because he feels that its squandered on welfare scroungers? But surely the taxes paid on his wages are (in the overall scheme of things), fuck all. Wouldn't he better better off being pissed at the massive government spending on far away pointless wars, or the Olympic games, cunts having their moats cleaned on expenses, or i dunno..... street lights rather than whining on about single mother benefits?

Who were the concept grasping predecessors of the neoliberals? I am not educated in such matters, and google is not helpful.


----------



## Mungy (Jun 26, 2012)

fwiw the woman who is used as an example in the 14 years, she claims benefits of around £98k for that period. An MP would have been paid around £910k plus expenses. Vodafone would have avoided anything up to £50bn. You sure we are all in this together?


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2012)

Mungy said:


> fwiw the woman who is used as an example in the 14 years, she claims benefits of around £98k for that period. An MP would have been paid around £910k plus expenses. Vodafone would have avoided anything up to £50bn. You sure we are all in this together?


Just think of the value that MPs add to society though.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Corax said:


> Just think of the value that MPs add to society though.


Mostly negative value, I suspect.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Two Sidneys = Even better
> 
> What would you call your other one if you had two?


I don't know to be honest, never really thought about it.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Mostly negative value, I suspect.


You'll never be a contributing member of the Big Society unless you deal with that awful cynicism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> Ohhhhhh..... So, let me see if I've got this straight... because he's a public sector worker and in-the-know, he somehow resents the taxes that he pays because he feels that its squandered on welfare scroungers? But surely the taxes paid on his wages are (in the overall scheme of things), fuck all. Wouldn't he better better off being pissed at the massive government spending on far away pointless wars, or the Olympic games, cunts having their moats cleaned on expenses, or i dunno..... street lights rather than whining on about single mother benefits?
> 
> Who were the concept grasping predecessors of the neoliberals? I am not educated in such matters, and google is not helpful.


Pretty much the political spectrum, insofar as social democracy and its' values were seen as being worthy of preservation via "the welfare state" and a degree of state control of the worst excesses of capitalism. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot that doesn't commend the era of social democratic consensus, but they at least realised that if people have something to lose, they're more likely to be submissive, whereas these bastards (the Tory, Labour and Lib-dem neolibs) seem to be doing their very best to stir up wholesale conflict.

If I were a cynic, I'd have a vague suspicion that cameron has a yen for martial law, but even he can't be that fucking stupid.

Can he?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

Corax said:


> Just think of the value that MPs add to society though.


 
So little that they'd add more if used for fertiliser.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

Corax said:


> You'll never be a contributing member of the Big Society unless you deal with that awful cynicism.


Yeah, I know. 

I do work though, so under Zaba's 'logic' I think I count, sort of.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pretty much the political spectrum, insofar as social democracy and its' values were seen as being worthy of preservation via "the welfare state" and a degree of state control of the worst excesses of capitalism. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot that doesn't commend the era of social democratic consensus, but they at least realised that if people have something to lose, they're more likely to be submissive, whereas these bastards (the Tory, Labour and Lib-dem neolibs) seem to be doing their very best to stir up wholesale conflict.
> 
> If I were a cynic, I'd have a vague suspicion that cameron has a yen for martial law, but even he can't be that fucking stupid.
> 
> Can he?


Yes, yes he can, going on recent events.

He left one of his children in the pub remember...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I don't know to be honest, never really thought about it.


 
Whitney  

Sort of rhymes with Sidney


----------



## Mungy (Jun 26, 2012)

no idea who he is, but i agree with what he says.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Yes, yes he can, going on recent events.
> 
> He left one of his children in the pub remember...


 
You're right.
I forgot the man's a fucking idiot for a few seconds. I promise not to let it happen again.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 26, 2012)




----------



## equationgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

I really do want to commit random acts of unkindness against that man......


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 27, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I really do want to commit random acts of unkindness against that man......


 
I bet nobody thought it was possible to have anyone more evil than Thatcher


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I bet nobody thought it was possible to have anyone more evil than Thatcher


 
Apparently Thatch was quite nice to the cleaning staff at Downing Street. I reckon Cameron does that thing where someone is carrying a load of stuff and you deliberately knock it out their hands and say "oh look, you dropped something, looooserrrr!".


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Apparently Thatch was quite nice to the cleaning staff at Downing Street. I bet Cameron does that thing where someone is carrying a load of stuff and you deliberately knock it out their hands and say "oh look, you dropped something, looooserrrr!".


 
Probably does it to the cleaners as they're the lowest of the low, poor feckers, probably claiming Housing Benefit because cleaning wages aren't enough to pay their rent


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Apparently Thatch was quite nice to the cleaning staff at Downing Street. I reckon Cameron does that thing where someone is carrying a load of stuff and you deliberately knock it out their hands and say "oh look, you dropped something, looooserrrr!".


I bet he glues pound coins to the floor to see if they try and pick it up.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I bet nobody thought it was possible to have anyone more evil than Thatcher


I know, I'm quite appalled. I also didn't think it was actually possible.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Probably does it to the cleaners as they're the lowest of the low, poor feckers, probably claiming Housing Benefit because cleaning wages aren't enough to pay their rent


 
If I worked at number 10 I would sneak in a screwdriver one day, un-screw Dave's computer screen, shit in it, and then put it back together.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If I worked at number 10 I would sneak in a screwdriver one day, un-screw Dave's computer screen, shit in it, and then put it back together.


 
What would that achieve?   (or is it a touchscreen one and everything will squidge out of the sides?)

Wouldn't doing his keyboard be better?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If I worked at number 10 I would sneak in a screwdriver one day, un-screw Dave's computer screen, shit in it, and then put it back together.


direct action ftw


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2012)

captainmission said:


> What you're saying there would make no sense under current benefits or housing allocation rules or those of of the last 14 years.
> 
> <>snip
> 
> P.s. how many boyfriends/girlfriends have you had over a 14 year period?


Fantastic post.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What would that achieve?  (or is it a touchscreen one and everything will squidge out of the sides?)
> 
> Wouldn't doing his keyboard be better?


 
Well the hope would be that it slowly roasted inside, gradually letting off a pong that grows stronger by the day. It could be weeks before they figured out the origin of the smell.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Well the hope would be that it slowly roasted inside, gradually letting off a pong that grows stronger by the day. It could be weeks before they figured out the origin of the smell.


 

But wouldn't the screen look a bit murky? 

I reckon the old sewing fish into the curtains would be good


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> But wouldn't the screen look a bit murky?
> 
> I reckon the old sewing fish into the curtains would be good


 
I _really_ do want to do a shit though.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I _really_ do want to do a shit though.


 
Well ok you do a shit, and after you've done that, go and sew some prawns into the curtains


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well ok you do a shit, and after you've done that, go and sew some prawns into the curtains


 
Yayyy!


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, Nigel still posts as Nigel.
> TBFm he has comedy value. Recalling the time he issued a death-threat to me by PM when I made an off-colour comment about his mother's professional credentials still brings a smile to my face.


 
Smell the Coffee on CIF as well....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2012)

regardless


Zabo said:


> Leaving aside some of the rhetoric and even the mature, considered responses I'd appreciate a response to this:
> 
> I've worked all my life delivering services to the public and bringing up my own family. My work was in the community with what were colloquially known as 'Sin-Bins' (horrid expression) or Pupil Referral Units. It was demanding but it certainly afforded insights into lots of things. Invariably most of the youngsters were 'victims' of seriously fucked up parents who you wouldn't trust with a pet spider let alone another human being.
> 
> ...


regardless of the actions of the parents, the children deserve a good chance in life


----------



## audiotech (Jun 27, 2012)

Zabo conveniently omits any reference to the middle classes who, in the scheme of things, are by their very upbringing and educational opportunities past masters at receiving state subsidies to assist in climbing the much less greasy pole for them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> regardless
> 
> regardless of the actions of the parents, the children deserve a good chance in life


 
Perhaps Herr Zabo, believes in collective punishment, _nicht wahr_?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Zabo conveniently omits any reference to the middle classes who, in the scheme of things, are by their upbringing and educational opportunities past masters at receiving state subsidies to assist in climbing the much less greasy pole for them.


 
One wonders why?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 27, 2012)

> They should shelter and feed them for 14 or more years without making any claim on them to make some contribution to society?


 
I'd say raising two children is a contribution to society, and a far more valuable one than that made by any copper, bailiff, stock broker or marketing executive.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 27, 2012)

We know why VP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

audiotech said:


> We know why VP.


 
True, but stating that he's irrationally afraid of the working classes (and yes, Zabo, I do count people such as those you castigate as "working class" even if they're unable or unwilling to work), a _bourgeois_ fool and that he should reserve his ire for the people who're stealing his freedom hasn't got us anywhere in the past G-d knows how many pages.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> True, but stating that he's irrationally afraid of the working classes (and yes, Zabo, I do count people such as those you castigate as "working class" even if they're unable or unwilling to work), a _bourgeois_ fool and that he should reserve his ire for the people who're stealing his freedom hasn't got us anywhere in the past G-d knows how many pages.


 
I'd hazard a guess more petty bourgeois and enjoying the fruits of his status, whilst feeling pretty smug, thinking that he is somehow 'protecting the public purse' he has more than likely had a good stash of throughout life.


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2012)

Y'know. This reminds me of a conversation I had not so long ago on the same topic. After several minutes condemning "benefit scroungers" and basically arguing for workfare, the person I was talking to then claimed that they wouldn't employ mothers because they make unreliable employees due to the amount of time off they need for child related stuff.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 27, 2012)

smokedout said:


> I'd say raising two children is a contribution to society, and a far more valuable one than that made by any copper, bailiff, stock broker or marketing executive.


 
What if you raise two children and one becomes a copper and the other one becomes a marketing executive?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 27, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> What if you raise two children and one becomes a copper and the other one becomes a marketing executive?


Then you do the decent thing, go back in time and kill yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Then you do the decent thing, go back in time and kill yourself.


 
And the children. Spare them the shame of their future careers.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 27, 2012)

oi you lot, my kid's dad is a copper


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 27, 2012)




----------



## Zabo (Jun 27, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> regardless of the actions of the parents, the children deserve a good chance in life


 
Indeed so.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Indeed so.


 
so how is cutting state help FOR THEM gonna do that?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2012)

Zabo do you live in Cornwall?

Ever slapped a mad man on a boat?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Zabo do you live in Cornwall?
> 
> Ever slapped a mad man on a boat?


 
He had to, it's the law of the sea!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> oi you lot, my kid's dad is a copper


 
But your kid isn't. If you look, you'll see it's about if one of your kids becomes a copper and the other one a marketing executive.
So ner!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Indeed so.


 
And yet you want to fuck their parents over, regardless of your oh-so-charitable intentions towards the children. Do you not see the contradiction?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> He had to, it's the law of the sea!


 
It's also the law of the sea that if you don't shoot a boat-happy person, you immediately forfeit your own right-to-life too.

The law of the sea is harsh, but fair.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> But your kid isn't. If you look, you'll see it's about if one of your kids becomes a copper and the other one a marketing executive.
> So ner!


 


well fairy muff, wouldn't have wanted it for any of mine tbh.......watched a really nice, good bloke become suspicious and judgemental.........although (and i know you will all laugh up your sleeves) a 'good' copper........yes i know


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> so how is cutting state help FOR THEM gonna do that?


 
Magic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> well fairy muff, wouldn't have wanted it for any of mine tbh.......watched a really nice, good bloke become suspicious and judgemental.........although (and i know you will all laugh up your sleeves) a 'good' copper........yes i know


 
I'm not an ACAB person myself. I'm aware there are "good" cops and "bad" cops. The problem is that they all belong to an institution where clannishness, "them and us" and "looking after your own" is second-nature, and that means that even with the best of intentions bad shit is glossed over, swept under the carpet and generally forgiven, where such behaviour in other parts of the public sector would result in prosecution for corruption.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 27, 2012)

smokedout said:


> I'd say raising two children is a contribution to society, and a far more valuable one than that made by any copper, bailiff, stock broker or marketing executive.


 
What if the kids grow up to be stock brokers?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 27, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> What if the kids grow up to be stock brokers?


 
What a stupid question.


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy said:


> fwiw the woman who is used as an example in the 14 years, she claims benefits of around £98k for that period. An MP would have been paid around £910k plus expenses. Vodafone would have avoided anything up to £50bn. You sure we are all in this together?


Because I am hard of thinking it has only just occurred to me that as MP's are paid by the tax payers, the hard working irate tax payer is happy to pay the likes of IDS his £65k + expenses per annum  but baulks at the thought of paying a single mum £7k per annum. The single mum almost certainly is doing more for society than IDS.

I realise that to many people on Urban this is not news, but for me and my slow moving brain, joining the dots is one of the trickier things in my trying to understand just what is going on in the world.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy said:


> Because I am hard of thinking it has only just occurred to me that as MP's are paid by the tax payers, the hard working irate tax payer is happy to pay the likes of IDS his £65k + expenses per annum but baulks at the thought of paying a single mum £7k per annum. The single mum almost certainly is doing more for society than IDS.
> 
> I realise that to many people on Urban this is not news, but for me and my slow moving brain, joining the dots is one of the trickier things in my trying to understand just what is going on in the world.


 
The question is, *is* that what the "irate tax payer" actually thinks, or is it a conclusion he/she has in effect been "programmed" with due to near-continuous promotion of this belief (because that's what it is, a belief) by those self-same self-serving politicians and their buddies in the media?


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The question is, *is* that what the "irate tax payer" actually thinks, or is it a conclusion he/she has in effect been "programmed" with due to near-continuous promotion of this belief (because that's what it is, a belief) by those self-same self-serving politicians and their buddies in the media?


indeed


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy said:


> Because I am hard of thinking it has only just occurred to me that as MP's are paid by the tax payers, the hard working irate tax payer is happy to pay the likes of IDS his £65k + expenses per annum but baulks at the thought of paying a single mum £7k per annum. The single mum almost certainly is doing more for society than IDS.
> 
> I realise that to many people on Urban this is not news, but for me and my slow moving brain, joining the dots is one of the trickier things in my trying to understand just what is going on in the world.


 
Don't stop there Mungy. I'm a sure you can find a million more comparisons. Over paid Whitehall Mandarins who don't work - State scroungers in pin stripes. Council Chief Executives who appoint themselves through a contracted out system. Consultants who use the NHS for private work. PFI backhanders. All Public Service employees who skive off work.

'Oi, what you doing having a fag break? Yoos supposed to be working yoos is.'

I wonder how much that costs the taxpayer? And then the extra long, paid lunch breaks for all those involved in Quangos and trusts. Fuck! We could be here forever!

Maybe we should start a comparison thread and get somebody in from the LSE to analyse the figures.

And then there's the argument about people receiving benefits re-cycling the money with the V.A.T. they have to pay: fuel, certain foods, transport etc. Very important that they contribute to the economy. Positive re-cycling. That needs to be taken into account.

It goes on and on doesn't it? You can make as many daft arguments as you want - invariably to suit your own cause.

Have a listen to the Moral Maze with the very special: It's Me Again! It's Me Owen! Relates to all this thread.

Entitled - Not Entitled

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k29ph#synopsis


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Don't stop there Mungy. I'm a sure you can find a million more comparisons. Over paid Whitehall Mandarins who don't work - State scroungers in pin stripes. Council Chief Executives who appoint themselves through a contracted out system. Consultants who use the NHS for private work. PFI backhanders. All Public Service employees who skive off work.
> 
> 'Oi, what you doing having a fag break? Yoos supposed to be working yoos is.'
> 
> ...


All of which need dealing with before anyone starts looking at the bottom of the pile and the alleged benefit scroungers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

I told you all about this zabo cunt a year ago. Pay heed to my warnings people.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy said:


> All of which need dealing with before anyone starts looking at the bottom of the pile and the alleged benefit scroungers.


 
'Bottom of the pile?' Interesting expression.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I told you all about this zabo cunt a year ago. Pay heed to my warnings people.


 
Most people have you on ignore so I think, like your wild and nonsensical posts, your warning will be ignored.

Do you wear your tin hat when issuing out warnings? Can you have a word with Editor to fix up some klaxon type sound with all your posts?

Cheers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:
			
		

> 'Bottom of the pile?' Interesting expression.


Why don't you explain how and why then? All ears.


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Most people have you on ignore so I think, like your wild and nonsensical posts, your warning will be ignored.
> 
> Do you wear your tin hat when issuing out warnings? Can you have a word with Editor to fix up some klaxon type sound with all your posts?
> 
> Cheers.





Heh heh.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy, don't forget I worked in the public sector - wonderful to serve one's people and therefore you should also consider some of the following reaching across the entire strata of services from the idle, unelected fuckers who are paid to attend the House Of Fools in order to fall asleep to somebody being late for work or taking an unofficial 'sicky'. But then you will also have to include those who go beyond the call of duty and instead of working their fixed 37 hour week they work 60 hours without overtime or time of in lieu.

You will be there for a long, long time.


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> 'Bottom of the pile?' Interesting expression.


 
are you hard of thinking like myself? it sure is a heavy burden. discerning facts from daft arguments always seems like some kind of dark art to me. Do you not understand my expression?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

_Au contraire_ Mungy! I just question the use of selective and subjective comparisons.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 28, 2012)

zabo do you live in cornwall?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:
			
		

> Mungy, don't forget I worked in the public sector - wonderful to serve one's people and therefore you should also consider some of the following reaching across the entire strata of services from the idle, unlected fuckers who are paid to attend the House Of Fools in order to fall asleep to somebody being late for work or taking an unofficial 'sicky'. But then you will also have to include those who go beyond the call of duty and instead of working their fixed 37 hour week they work 60 hours without overtime or time of in lieu.
> 
> You will be there for a long, long time.


House of fools. That's very good. We may be in the presence of a modern day swift here. Have you any other equally biting terms?


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Mungy, don't forget I worked in the public sector - wonderful to serve one's people and therefore you should also consider some of the following reaching across the entire strata of services from the idle, unlected fuckers who are paid to attend the House Of Fools in order to fall asleep to somebody being late for work or taking an unofficial 'sicky'. But then you will also have to include those who go beyond the call of duty and instead of working their fixed 37 hour week they work 60 hours without overtime or time of in lieu.
> 
> You will be there for a long, long time.


Perhaps then, the solution is to have the same wage right across the board £7k pa. No more, no less. It doesn't matter how hard you work or how many hours you do, as long as you are contributing to society that is all that matters. If it is the minimum that a person needs to survive then that is all we need. Why would anyone need more than that?


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> _Au contraire_ Mungy! I just question the use of selective and subjective comparisons.


What does that mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

chilango said:
			
		

> Heh heh.


Check him on Fellini. Proper intellectual here.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy said:


> What does *that* mean?


 
The word *that* is used in the English language for several grammatical purposes:
to introduce a restrictive relative clause ("She took the test that was hard.")
as a demonstrative pronoun ("That was hard.")
as a demonstrative adjective ("That test was hard.")
as a complementizer/subordinating conjunction. ("He asked that she go.")
as an adverb ("The test wasn't that bad.")

In the Old English language that was spelled þæt. It was also abbreviated as a letter Thorn, þ, with the ascender crossed, ꝥ ( ). In Middle English the letter Ash, æ, was replaced with the letter a, so that that was spelled þat, or sometimes þet. The ascender of the þ was reduced (making it similar to the Old English letter Wynn, ƿ), which necessitated writing a small t above the letter to abbreviate the word that ( ). In later Middle English and Early Modern English the þ evolved into a y shape, so that the word was spelled yat (although the spelling with a th replacing the þ was starting to become more popular) and the abbreviation for that was a y with a small t above it ( ). This abbreviation can still be seen in reprints of the 1611 edition of the King James Version of the Bible in places such as 2 Corinthians 13:7.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> zabo do you live in cornwall?


 
No but if you do can I come down for a holiday? In return you can come up here and enjoy the wonderful peaks and valleys.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

You ain't got the busfare to do this stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 28, 2012)

I was confusing you with somebody who did


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> House of fools. That's very good. We may be in the presence of a modern day swift here. Have you any other equally biting terms?


 
Gone off Swift except for snippets from his wonderful biography. Moved on to Druzhnikov.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I was confusing you with somebody who did


 
Never mind eh. Take care. You are one of the few whose posts I always enjoy reading.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You ain't got the busfare to do this stuff.


 
Why would I need a bus when I have two donkeys?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:
			
		

> Why would I need a bus when I have two donkeys?


An attentive and alert reader I see.

 Nothing so desperate as the need to appear high brow. So revealing of insecurities.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> An attentive and alert reader I see.


 
I was but that fuckin' klaxon noise on all your posts is making my concentration drift somewhat.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:
			
		

> I was but that fuckin' klaxon noise on all your posts is making my concentration drift somewhat.


I'm not at all convinced that's what's been making you post this drivel three days straight now. You're just not up to any of this.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

But, but...I do so in the forlorn hope that you will make an engaging response. Your incisive wit and repartee affords a perfect counterbalance to all the other intelligent and stimulating posts.

Must go, I can hear that damn klaxon again!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I told you all about this zabo cunt a year ago. Pay heed to my warnings people.


 
Maybe it's a username beginning with 'za..' thing, 'cos Zaskar and Zachor were both cunts too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:
			
		

> But, but...I do so in the forlorn hope that you will make an engaging response. Your incisive wit and repartee affords a perfect counterbalance to all the other intelligent and stimulating posts.
> 
> Must go, I can hear that damn klaxon again!



 Did your Mum tell you that you were good at that writing style millhouse?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> 'Bottom of the pile?' Interesting expression.


 
Not in the sense you're trying to insinuate, however.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Most people have you on ignore so I think, like your wild and nonsensical posts, your warning will be ignored.
> 
> Do you wear your tin hat when issuing out warnings? Can you have a word with Editor to fix up some klaxon type sound with all your posts?
> 
> Cheers.


 
"Most people"? Really?
Are you sure you don't mean "me and those posters I keep getting 'PMs of support' from"?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> 'Bottom of the pile?' Interesting expression.


You've yet to explain why bringing up kids isn't work.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Mungy, don't forget I worked in the public sector - wonderful to serve one's people and therefore you should also consider some of the following reaching across the entire strata of services from the idle, unelected fuckers who are paid to attend the House Of Fools in order to fall asleep to somebody being late for work or taking an unofficial 'sicky'. But then you will also have to include those who go beyond the call of duty and instead of working their fixed 37 hour week they work 60 hours without overtime or time of in lieu.
> 
> You will be there for a long, long time.


Yes, you worked in a PRU, which makes your views all the more despicable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, you worked in a PRU, which makes your views all the more despicable.


Hating everyone and everything probably meant he was great at the job. Or a danger to vulnerable people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> _Au contraire_ Mungy! I just question the use of selective and subjective comparisons.


 
"Bottom of the pile" isn't selective or subjective, it's common argot, and a well-used expression that signifies for a wider viewpoint. Bottom of the pile signifies for being the last to be seen/dealt with/served because....wait for it...you're at the bottom of the pile, and linear activity (start at the top and work downward) dictates that you'll be the last to be seen/dealt with/served!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Check him on Fellini. Proper intellectual here.


 
Because he knows about pasta?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hating everyone and everything probably meant he was great at the job. Or a danger to vulnerable people.


 
You reckon he was a bit too handy with the pindown techniques?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, you worked in a PRU, which makes your views all the more despicable.


 
And what would you know about a Pupil Referral Unit? Probably sweet fuck all other than what you discuss down at the pub or some empty bus shelter.

Any thoughts on what you would do with the teenagers who have been booted out of school because the school failed them? Any thoughts on what you would do with the kids who are neglected and abused by parents? Any ideas of the positive work that some of these units do? Do you know anything about the units that actually get young people settled into jobs and accommodation? Have you any idea what it is like to work with a young teenager who has been fucked around by the system and their own family? Have you visited every unit in the U.K.? Have you fuck. You know nothing other than to trot out gross stereotypes and piss poor political clichés.

Grow up and fuck off back to the Twittersphere until you can learn to create a constructive argument based on experience and knowledge. Maybe one day you will be able to think up something positive that you would do to help kids other than writing the shite you do.

We won't hold our breath.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

We?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> And what would you know about a Pupil Referral Unit? Probably sweet fuck all other than what you discuss down at the pub or some empty bus shelter.
> 
> Any thoughts on what you would do with the teenagers who have been booted out of school because the school failed them? Any thoughts on what you would do with the kids who are neglected and abused by parents? Any ideas of the positive work that some of these units do? Do you know anything about the units that actually get young people settled into jobs and accommodation? Have you any idea what is is like to work with a young teenager who has been fucked around by the system and their own family? Have you visited every unit in the U.K.? Have you fuck. You know nothing other than to trot out gross stereotypes and piss poor political clichés.
> 
> Grow up and fuck off back to the Twittersphere until you can learn to create a constructive argument based on experience and knowledge.


 
I went to one as a kid myself and have taught at one. You're not the only teacher on here, you know.

Again, where is this place where lots of people instantly get 3-bedroom semi-detached houses for having two kids? You mentioned the Peaks before - are you claiming people get enormous houses easily in the Peak District?


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Latest on the 'extra bedroom tax' from the ALMO I rent from.
Housing benefit will be cut by 14 percent for properties with one extra bedroom and 25 percent for two, or more extra bedrooms. For example, a family iiving in a four bedroomed property (rent £60), but assessed as only needing two will see their housing benefit cut by £!5. A family living in a three bedroomed property (rent £60), but assessed as needing two will see their housing benefit cut by £8.40 per week. These rent examples that they've used are bullshit by the way. My rent is over £71 per week and is neither a four, or three bedroomed property.

Edit: NB: The ALMO use the word "reduced", which I've replaced with "cut"


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 28, 2012)

What?  Blags point was that given you work with vulnerable people, you should be even more aware of how important support is, and aware of the arguments about cutting of benefits for parents when children are involved who could suffer.  Young people like the ones you work with. 

You should also be well aware of what I explained much earlier in the thread, about 'I can't be bothered' or 'I'm going to sit on my arse and do nothing' being a smoke screen for 'I lack confidence and I'm scared'.  Christ, it's not rocket science.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 28, 2012)

Who gets four bedroomed properties where the rent is only £60?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> And what would you know about a Pupil Referral Unit? Probably sweet fuck all other than what you discuss down at the pub or some empty bus shelter.
> 
> Any thoughts on what you would do with the teenagers who have been booted out of school because the school failed them? Any thoughts on what you would do with the kids who are neglected and abused by parents? Any ideas of the positive work that some of these units do? Do you know anything about the units that actually get young people settled into jobs and accommodation? Have you any idea what it is like to work with a young teenager who has been fucked around by the system and their own family? Have you visited every unit in the U.K.? Have you fuck. You know nothing other than to trot out gross stereotypes and piss poor political clichés.
> 
> ...



You show yourself up more with every post you make


----------



## scifisam (Jun 28, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Who gets four bedroomed properties where the rent is only £60?


 
Zabo's single Mum friends, I reckon.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

scifisam said:


> Zabo's single Mum friends, I reckon.


Zabo doesn't have any friends.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Never mind eh. Take care. You are one of the few whose posts I always enjoy reading.


 
I'm surprised, frogwomans posts do reflect some humanity and compassion, whereas yours don't.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 28, 2012)

Who is this Zabo chappie anyway?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Who is this Zabo chappie anyway?


Some cunt


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> What? Blags point was that given you work with vulnerable people, you should be even more aware of how important support is, and aware of the arguments about cutting of benefits for parents when children are involved who could suffer. Young people like the ones you work with.
> 
> You should also be well aware of what I explained much earlier in the thread, about 'I can't be bothered' or 'I'm going to sit on my arse and do nothing' being a smoke screen for 'I lack confidence and I'm scared'. Christ, it's not rocket science.


 
Yes I am very aware. I totally disregard anything Blagsta says. Unlike you he can't construct an argument or discussion only a one line insult. The entrails of his insults are all over the site.

To your point. I am fully aware of the lack of confidence that some young parents have and as such require support. That however should not preclude them from eventually returning to or starting to work. Yes, yes I know about the lack of jobs. There does however have to be a starting point and as I'm sure you will know the longer the delay the more difficult it becomes. I've worked with some teenage parents in the community and it took an enormous effort just to get them to join in some social activities. Once that hurdle was overcome they never looked back. You'll know the words: dignity, self-esteem, worth, pride.

Did you listen to the Moral Maze? Leaving aside some of the nonsense a few things were mentioned which illustrates the difference in the current generation and the previous generation - in particular the original ideas of Beveridge. 

Ultimately it is about entitlements, benefits and the responsibility that goes with receiving them. Unless of course you think you owe the world and its dog fuck all and you should be entitled to everything and anything for the rest of your life.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Who gets four bedroomed properties where the rent is only £60?


 
No-one, as I said bullshit examples.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Who gets four bedroomed properties where the rent is only £60?


 

No idea? Who said £60 a week and where?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 28, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Some cunt


I thought as much.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 28, 2012)

> *Did you listen to the Moral Maze?* Leaving aside some of the nonsense a few things were mentioned which illustrates the difference in the current generation and the previous generation - in particular the original ideas of Beveridge.


 
And the warning klaxon sounds.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Ultimately it is about entitlements, benefits and the responsibility that goes with receiving them. Unless of course you think you owe the world and its dog fuck all and you should be entitled to everything and anything for the rest of your life.


 
See smug, looking down on the little people he thinks he "helps".


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> No-one, as I said bullshit examples.


 
Oh right, as you were


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Yes I am very aware. I totally disregard anything Blagsta says. Unlike you he can't construct an argument or discussion only a one line insult. The entrails of his insults are all over the site.
> 
> To your point. I am fully aware of the lack of confidence that some young parents have and as such require support. That however should not preclude them from eventually returning to or starting to work. Yes, yes I know about the lack of jobs. There does however have to be a starting point and as I'm sure you will know the longer the delay the more difficult it becomes. I've worked with some teenage parents in the community and it took an enormous effort just to get them to join in some social activities. Once that hurdle was overcome they never looked back. You'll know the words: dignity, self-esteem, worth, pride.
> 
> ...


Go on, construct an argument, beyond "bringing up kids isn't real work" (you still need to justify that by the way).


----------



## scifisam (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> No idea? Who said £60 a week and where?


 
Audiotech's ALMO.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

you're RCP/Spiked aren't you Zabo


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> you're RCP/Spiked aren't you Zabo


You give him far too much credit. He's just a donkey who thinks he's clever and hates everyone. (here's your opening weepy)


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 28, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> you're RCP/Spiked aren't you Zabo


Got to be. I bet he's really Brendan "I'll say anything I like and you'd better like it" O'Neill.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

scifisam said:


> I went to one as a kid myself and have taught at one. You're not the only teacher on here, you know.
> 
> Again, where is this place where lots of people instantly get 3-bedroom semi-detached houses for having two kids? You mentioned the Peaks before - are you claiming people get enormous houses easily in the Peak District?


 
Might I suggest you go back to the origial post and read the following comment: "...Fourteen years later." 

I assume you will be able to deduce that it was relatively easy to get a three bedroomed house exchange fourteen years previously. No mention of the present was made.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Yes I am very aware. I totally disregard anything Blagsta says. Unlike you he can't construct an argument or discussion only a one line insult. The entrails of his insults are all over the site.
> 
> To your point. I am fully aware of the lack of confidence that some young parents have and as such require support. That however should not preclude them from eventually returning to or starting to work. Yes, yes I know about the lack of jobs. There does however have to be a starting point and as I'm sure you will know the longer the delay the more difficult it becomes. I've worked with some teenage parents in the community and it took an enormous effort just to get them to join in some social activities. Once that hurdle was overcome they never looked back. You'll know the words: dignity, self-esteem, worth, pride.
> 
> ...


 
You are missing the point entirely.  Much of the 'I'm entitled to everything culture' is a smokescreen for lack of confidence. Cutting people off is not going to magically instill them with confidence and dignity.  In fact it will take away their dignity and place their children at far greater risk of all sorts of things; do you really want to see malnourished kids roaming the streets in vast numbers, in far higher numbers than already happens already? 

What we need is more funding, better access to the sorts of services you describe, not arbitrarily cutting people off and leaving them alone.  All the playgroups in the world are going to be of no use if nobody has any money to pay their rent or feed themselves.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

scifisam said:


> Audiotech's ALMO.


 
As examples that don't even exist.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> See smug, looking down on the little people he thinks he "helps".


 
Feel free to substitute a word that fits your psycho-political lexicon. Empower, enable, encourage, facilitate.

Y-A-W-N


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Unless of course you think you owe the world and its dog fuck all and you should be entitled to everything and anything for the rest of your life.



Omnia sunt communia.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> You are missing the point entirely. Much of the 'I'm entitled to everything culture' is a smokescreen for lack of confidence. Cutting people off is not going to magically instill them with confidence and dignity. In fact it will take away their dignity and place their children at far greater risk of all sorts of things; do you really want to see malnourished kids roaming the streets in vast numbers, in far higher numbers than already happens already?
> 
> What we need is more funding, better access to the sorts of services you describe, not arbitrarily cutting people off and leaving them alone. All the playgroups in the world are going to be of no use if nobody has any money to pay their rent or feed themselves.


 

For arguments sake I will accept all your valid points. I can't see any reason to disagree. Now tell me if all the above is achieved at what point would you expect he or she to return to work?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Capital and the state knows about the importance of producing and reproducing Labour power. Gabo doesn't.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)




----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

chilango said:


> Omnia sunt communia.


 
Alas an ideal not a reality and never will be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:
			
		

> Alas an ideal not a reality and never will be.


It already is.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Might I suggest you go back to the origial post and read the following comment: "...Fourteen years later."
> 
> I assume you will be able to deduce that it was relatively easy to get a three bedroomed house exchange fourteen years previously. No mention of the present was made.


 
I don't believe it was easy 14 years ago. 14 years ago I was myself just about to become a single mother, in fact; we're hardly talking a prior generation where everything was different. Single Mums didn't waltz into enormous houses then, either.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Feel free to substitute a word that fits your psycho-political lexicon. Empower, enable, encourage, facilitate.
> 
> Y-A-W-N


 
'Empower', 'enable', 'encourage', 'facilitate' are all facile buzzwords in the bureaucratic lexicon of which you inhabit, but really it's all bollocks and deep down you know that.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

scifisam said:


> I don't believe it was easy 14 years ago. 14 years ago I was myself just about to become a single mother, in fact; we're hardly talking a prior generation where everything was different. Single Mums didn't waltz into enormous houses then, either.


 
What you beleive Sam and what was reality in the North-West fourteen years ago are factually different.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> 'Empower', 'enable', 'encourage', 'facilitate' are all facile buzzwords in the bureaucratic lexicon of which you inhabit, but really it's all bollocks and deep down you know that.


 
And your choice of word(s) would be?


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> 'Empower', 'enable', 'encourage', 'facilitate'





Alas an ideal not a reality and never will be.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> What you beleive Sam and what was reality in the North-West fourteen years ago are factually different.


 
You claimed it, you prove it.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Disagree totally Chilango.

How about 'enabling' youngsters to set up their own 'owned' drug advice network? What would you call that?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

scifisam said:


> You claimed it, you prove it.


 
What evidence would you like leaving aside the fact I could easily tell you to fuck off for accusing me of lying.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> And your choice of word(s) would be?


 
Don't believe the crap they feed you. Get organised, free yourself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Why are all these idiots deciding to speak out loud and proud right now? Hmmm


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Disagree totally Chilango.
> 
> How about 'enabling' youngsters to set up their own 'owned' drug advice network? What would you call that?



You'd need to explain what you mean by "enabling" and how that fits with "owning".

But, whatever.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Chilango. How about giving them the opportunity to acknowledge that they have the wherewithal to achieve what it is they may wish to achieve.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> For arguments sake I will accept all your valid points. I can't see any reason to disagree. Now tell me if all the above is achieved at what point would you expect he or she to return to work?


 
I wouldn't.  If somebody would rather stay at home and look after their kids, that's fine by me to be honest.  You shouldn't put time scales on these things.  I am far more interested in somebody accessing something and doing it because it makes them feel more self confident and more comfortable within themselves as opposed to them accessing it so after x period of time somebody can then turn around to them and say 'right, off down t'mine with you!'


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why are all these idiots deciding to speak out loud and proud right now? Hmmm


 
They heard your klaxon. Maybe they see you as the _Urban Dynamo_ and hope to be trapped in the vortex of your linguistic whirlpool?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:
			
		

> They heard your klaxon. Maybe they see you as the Urban Dynamo and hope to be trapped in your vortex?


Or maybe they've been emboldened to speak their idiocy unto other idiots by a calculated series of vicious attacks on the welfare state and collective social provision.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> The word *that* is used in the English language for several grammatical purposes:<snip>


Beautiful piece of stonewalling there, sweetie, now try answering the question which you know was asked.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why are all these idiots deciding to speak out loud and proud right now? Hmmm


 
I dare say they've been 'empowered', 'enabled', 'facilitated' and 'encouraged' by tory rhetoric and their media cohorts_'._


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

'Cohorts' I like. 

You can spot a middle class education a  mile away.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> What evidence would you like leaving aside the fact I could easily tell you to fuck off for accusing me of lying.


 
You can tell me to fuck off all you like, it won't make what you're saying true. 

My council has a list of how long you can expect to wait for a home depending on what band you're in. Maybe yours has something similar; you'd probably find it quite interesting to see some stats like that anyway. They won't have changed much in 14 years - there hasn't been any major change in the law or population or anything - but maybe increased unemployment has lead to longer waits now, so you'd have to take that into account.

The only place I can see it being possible for people to relatively easily get a council place like that would be on large estates outside maybe Bradford or Hull, where there's (relatively) a lot of cheap housing. But the thing is there's also sod-all work there, making it hard to berate someone for not working while bringing up their kids.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> 'Cohorts' I like.
> 
> You can spot a middle class education a mile away.


 
A secondary modern shithole actually, left school at 15. I'm self educated. Some of us oiks do that like.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Beautiful piece of stonewalling there, sweetie, now try answering the question which you know was asked.


 
Can't help Greebo. If the nice Mungy doesn't understand: "_Au contraire_ Mungy! I just question the use of selective and subjective comparisons."  then there is nothing I can do.


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> The word *that* is used in the English language for several grammatical purposes:
> to introduce a restrictive relative clause ("She took the test that was hard.")
> as a demonstrative pronoun ("That was hard.")
> as a demonstrative adjective ("That test was hard.")
> ...


 
It is not what I meant, as I am sure you are aware. But perhaps I do need to rephrase my question.

What does "I just question the use of selective and subjective comparisons."  mean? I do not understand the phrase.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> A secondary modern shithole actually, left school at 15. I'm self educated. Some of us oiks do that like.


 
Like me. Three cheers for auto-didactism eh brother? I was secondary modern too but they wanted to be flash and called it a High School.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Can't help Greebo. If the nice Mungy doesn't understand: "_Au contraire_ Mungy! I just question the use of selective and subjective comparisons." then there is nothing I can do.


And you're stonewalling again.  Go back and answer the question, sweetie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:
			
		

> Like me. Three cheers for auto-didactism eh brother? I was secondary modern too but they wanted to be flash and called it a High School.


Didn't do a very good job did you?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> But, but...I do so in the forlorn hope that you will make an engaging response. Your incisive wit and repartee affords a perfect counterbalance to all the other intelligent and stimulating posts.
> 
> Must go, I can hear that damn klaxon again!


You are repeatedly making this kind of response rather than address any of the excellent points made to you. This rather suggests that you cannot respond.

We live in a system which demands unemployment in order to increase profits. The 'natural rate' of unemployment in the UK is considered to be about 1.5 million people (4-5% of the workforce). The number of 'persistent work avoiders' is estimated at around 100,000. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of people do not want to live below the poverty line. Whatever your political perspective, it makes no sense to expend resources trying to force people into work when it will force those who do want to work into unemployment.

This article might help you to understand what it happening, and why - and perhaps to direct your ire at those targets actually deserving of it. You're being screwed over all right - but not by the people who have been screwed over so badly that they pretend to want to live below the poverty line.



> Keynes’s _General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money_, published in 1936, equipped governments with the intellectual tools to counter the unemployment caused by slumps. In this earlier essay, however, Keynes distinguished between unemployment caused by temporary economic breakdowns and what he called “technological unemployment” – that is, “unemployment due to the discovery of means of economizing the use of labor outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labor.”
> 
> Keynes reckoned that we would hear much more about this kind of unemployment in the future. But its emergence, he thought, was a cause for hope, rather than despair. For it showed that the developed world, at least, was on track to solving the “economic problem” – the problem of scarcity that kept mankind tethered to a burdensome life of toil.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy said:


> It is not what I meant, as I am sure you are aware. But perhaps I do need to rephrase my question.
> 
> What does "I just question the use of selective and subjective comparisons." mean? I do not understand the phrase.


 
I like you Mungy -as I said the other night.

What I meant to say - which I hoped you'd understand - was you were being very specific in the choice of your comparisons. Thus being selective and of course subjective. It is useful maybe to support your argument but it negates all other comparisons which may be equally valid. That however seems to be the way with Urban - with a few exceptions.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Like me. Three cheers for auto-didactism eh brother? I was secondary modern too but they wanted to be flash and called it a High School.


 
Unlike me, you've joined the ranks of the middle classes and going on what you post here, you've sucked up a fair dollup of their reactionary bilge on the way.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 28, 2012)

Except your whole fucking first post was a specific and selective example about one person.


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I like you Mungy -as I said the other night.
> 
> What I meant to say - which I hoped you'd understand - was you were being very specific in the choice of your comparisons. Thus being selective and of course subjective. It is useful maybe to support your argument but it negates all other comparisons which may be equally valid. That however seems to be the way with Urban - with a few exceptions.


The comparisons were suggested by you. I did say that the alleged benefit scroungers were at the bottom of the pile. It was then that you said I was being very specific in the choice of my comparisons. Have I understood you correctly?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

YMU. You may or may not be aware but I gave up on Butchers over a year ago. He is nothing but an  fukwit. In fact I am inclined to but him on ignore because he never has anything to say. 

I take it you know something about psychotherapy and counselling and possibly something about transactional analysis. If yes then you would realise that the one who constantly asks the equations is the one who seeks power. That in sum is Butchers. Why his type seek power by being the questioner I shall leave to your imagination.

Apropos your article. I shall give it some thought later. Oh yes! I will not obviously answer every single post because some of them need to get outside and get some fresh air. I mean...quoting fucking Marx and all the rest of the dead men in this 21st century suggests they are bereft of original ideas. Not responding may encourage them to enjoy a few gulps of fresh air.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy said:


> The comparisons were suggested by you. I did say that the alleged benefit scroungers were at the bottom of the pile. It was then that you said I was being very specific in the choice of my comparisons. Have I understood you correctly?


 
You said:



> Because I am hard of thinking it has only just occurred to me that as MP's are paid by the tax payers, the hard working irate tax payer is happy to pay the likes of IDS his £65k + expenses per annum but baulks at the thought of paying a single mum £7k per annum. The single mum almost certainly is doing more for society than IDS.


 
IDS - selective. Comparing a single parent - could be a dad - with IDS. As I said other comparisons are available.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Except your whole fucking first post was a specific and selective example about one person.


 
Yes/. I beleive it is known as 'an example'.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Yes/. I beleive it is known as 'an example'.


 
But you just seem to have criticised Mungy for using a specific example?!


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> YMU. You may or may not be aware..blah, blah, blah and inane ramblings........


 
Ad hominems and psycho-babble - piss-poor attempt.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Unlike me, you've joined the ranks of the middle classes and going on what you post here, you've sucked up a fair dollup of their reactionary bilge on the way.


 
I don't know what 'middle class' is.

I a mongrel.

If you mean education, knowledge and learning belongs to some particular strata of society which you want to put in a particular box and give it a name then it suggests you have not achieved personal enlightenment nor fulfilment. Not to worry, if you treat words as if they were shields of armour or weapons to fight the enemy then I wish you well. May you enjoy your battles as much as I enjoy my class free learning.

As a matter of interest: using your 'class terminology' would you deny each and every ember of the 'working class' the opportunity to enjoy the kaleidoscope of learning? If yes you would make a good friend of the lecturer who once said to me: "Well fancy! Somebody from your background knowing about Scarlatti!"


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> YMU. You may or may not be aware but I gave up on Butchers over a year ago. He is nothing but an fukwit. In fact I am inclined to but him on ignore because he never has anything to say.
> 
> I take it you know something about psychotherapy and counselling and possibly something about transactional analysis. If yes then you would realise that the one who constantly asks the equations is the one who seeks power. That in sum is Butchers. Why his type seek power by being the questioner I shall leave to your imagination.
> 
> Apropos your article. I shall give it some thought later. Oh yes! I will not obviously answer every single post because some of them need to get outside and get some fresh air. I mean...quoting fucking Marx and all the rest of the dead men in this 21st century suggests they are bereft of original ideas. Not responding may encourage them to enjoy a few gulps of fresh air.


I'm not at all interested in your psychobabble regarding specific posters, or your woefully ignorant one-line dismissals, or your painfully transparent attempts to dismiss some whilst sucking up to others.

If you can't tackle the ball, don't bother tacking the man. It's pathetic.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I don't know what 'middle class' is.
> 
> I a mongrel.
> 
> If you mean education, knowledge and learning belongs to some particular strata of society which you want to put in a particular box and give it a name then it suggests you have not achieved personal enlightenment nor fulfilment. Not to worry, if you treat words as if they were shields of armour or weapons to fight the enemy then I wish you well. May you enjoy your battles as much as I enjoy my learning.


 
No I don't mean that and boy have I met some thick 'well-educated' fuckers in my time. The middle class are those who side with the winners. You've picked the wrong side and will lose.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

That means you are a sad fuck of the saddest kind. May you forever live in the dungeons of your own mind, shackled by limb to your own bigotry.

Welcome to Urban.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

You've just lost now.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

ymu said:


> I'm not at all interested in your psychobabble regarding specific posters, or your woefully ignorant one-line dismissals, or your painfully transparent attempts to dismiss some whilst sucking up to others. If you can't tackle the ball, don't bother tacking the man. It's pathetic.


 
Sucking up? No. Complimenting those who can make a damn fine read without having to resort to some Marxist or pseudo communist shit. So dated, so tediously boring. So fucking Urban.

Psycho-babble? Well yes. But accurate psycho-babble.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> You've just lost now.


 
'Lost'. 

Well indeed and you have amplified the point I made about  class, words, warfare, win, lose.

Thank You


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> YMU. You may or may not be aware but I gave up on Butchers over a year ago. He is nothing but an fukwit. In fact I am inclined to but him on ignore because he never has anything to say.
> 
> I take it you know something about psychotherapy and counselling and possibly something about transactional analysis. If yes then you would realise that the one who constantly asks the equations is the one who seeks power. That in sum is Butchers. Why his type seek power by being the questioner I shall leave to your imagination.
> 
> Apropos your article. I shall give it some thought later. Oh yes! I will not obviously answer every single post because some of them need to get outside and get some fresh air. I mean...quoting fucking Marx and all the rest of the dead men in this 21st century suggests they are bereft of original ideas. Not responding may encourage them to enjoy a few gulps of fresh air.


You have 57 posts on this thread - roughly a tenth of the total.I said more in one single post than all yours put together.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> 'Lost'.
> 
> Well indeed and you have amplified the point I made about class, words, warfare, win, lose.
> 
> Thank You


 
Huh? I was referring to the vitriol in your post and the fact that you had lost it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Why can't people just get drunk 3 days in a row and argue sensibly - it's not hard.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I said more in one single post than all yours put together.


 
Well if you and others didn't ask so many inane questions and if I stopped being fool in answering them there would be less - just like the science and tablet posts.

Would you like me to contact the Royal Mint to get you a special coin minted to commemorate your erudition and brevity? I could ask them to put a klaxon on the obverse and a shredded dictionary on the other side.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

The comedy's crap too IMHO.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Huh? I was referring to the vitriol in your post and the fact that you had lost it.


 
I blame it on Molière - no relation to Jane Eyre before you ask.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Well if you and others didn't ask so many inane questions and if I stopped being fool in answering them there would be less - just like the science and tablet posts.
> 
> Would you like me to contact the Royal Mint to get you a special coin minted to commemorate your erudition and brevity? I could ask them to put a klaxon on the obverse and a shredded dictionary on the other side.


 
Answering them? You mean making rambling incoherent posts with little relation to the posts that you're replying to or that you yourself made, stuffed full of smugness about your superiority of intelligence and experience that you have no idea about, about which you have no idea how plain stupid they make you look. And top ended with pathetic smileys. Answering them?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I blame it on Molière - no relation to Jane Eyre before you ask.


_Nothing so tragic as a fool whose educated himself._


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> The comedy's crap too IMHO.


 
Start up a comedy thread. I'll let you go first. I'm sure you have a plethora of ribald jokes. Don't do the one about Trotsky and his cat. Been done to death.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 28, 2012)

This is fucking boring.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Answering them? You mean making rambling incoherent posts with little relation to the posts that you're replying to or that you yourself made, stuffed full of smugness about your superiority of intelligence and inexperience that you have no idea about, about which you have no idea how plain stupid they make you look. And top ended with pathetic smileys. Answering them?


 
You talk of incoherence? Spot the pleonasm.

Arrivederci Butcher's Dog!


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You talk of incoherence? Spot the pleonasm.
> 
> Arrivederci Butcher's Dog!


Be careful Zabo, you're coming dangerously close to unmasking yourself.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Except your whole fucking first post was a specific and selective example about one person.


 
Indeed.  It was a scenario where Zabo clearly stated that he did not consider bringing up kids to be real work.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> YMU. You may or may not be aware but I gave up on Butchers over a year ago. He is nothing but an fukwit. In fact I am inclined to but him on ignore because he never has anything to say.
> 
> I take it you know something about psychotherapy and counselling and possibly something about transactional analysis. If yes then you would realise that the one who constantly asks the equations is the one who seeks power. That in sum is Butchers. Why his type seek power by being the questioner I shall leave to your imagination.
> 
> Apropos your article. I shall give it some thought later. Oh yes! I will not obviously answer every single post because some of them need to get outside and get some fresh air. I mean...quoting fucking Marx and all the rest of the dead men in this 21st century suggests they are bereft of original ideas. Not responding may encourage them to enjoy a few gulps of fresh air.


 
Tell us all about psychotherapy and TZ, Zabo.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Alas he's gone forever now Greebo.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

I'm on fire - zabo, grits, kretek, lockandlight


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm on fire - zabo, grits, kretek, lockandlight


 
Nothing but the best!


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> A secondary modern shithole actually, left school at 15. I'm self educated. Some of us oiks do that like.



Actually I think you'll find that you have been " given the opportunity to acknowledge that you have the wherewithal to achieve what it is you may wish to achieve".

Duh.


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDS - selective. Comparing a single parent - could be a dad - with IDS. As I said other comparisons are available.


I made the assumption that by "being very specific in the choice of my comparisons" you were referring to my "bottom of the pile" comment which was the one you quoted about my choice of phrase. I feel as though you are purposefully trying to confuse me rather than give me a straight answer.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Chilango. "Get on with it kids!"


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Mungy said:


> I made the assumption that by "being very specific in the choice of my comparisons" you were referring to my "bottom of the pile" comment which was the one you quoted about my choice of phrase. I feel as though you are purposefully trying to confuse me rather than give me a straight answer.


 
Both Mungy, both. Not good to refer to people as being part of a pile - top or bottom.


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Both Mungy, both. Not good to refer to people as being part of a pile - top or bottom.


that is how i perceive it. pyramid shaped. many at the bottom, few at the top. I assume that most people would visualise a pile in that manner.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

All must have prizes, no one here is on the bottom or the top. I simply can't imagine how that would apply to income, wealth, social power, life opportunities, health, education nothing - everything  is perfectly equal and always has been and will be.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Alas he's gone forever now Greebo.


Count yourself lucky that I'd regard it as a serious breach of netiquette to say who I strongly suspect you are, Zabo.  Kindly desist from stonewalling, you're good at it, but it's becoming tedious.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Is it fong?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Interesting Mungy. I don't visualise people in a pile be it a pyramid or some other geometric shape. It suggests less than and more than. How about spectrum or continuum?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

In which one end of the continuum represents more of something and the other less of something. Jesu - help me tonight.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

chilango said:


> Actually I think you'll find that you have been " given the opportunity to acknowledge that you have the wherewithal to achieve what it is you may wish to achieve".
> 
> Duh.


 
Given? I've had to fight hard every inch of the way and here I am having being shafted by my employer, whose senior management and board members have more than likely sailed through life, with the previlege they take as granted.

Edit: On a more positive note. I heard recently that the Regional Director, who was instrumental in the shafting, has been shafted herself and was 'got rid of'. If there is such a thing as karma than that's it.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Given? I've had to fight hard every inch of the way and here I am having being shafted by my employer, whose senior management and board members have more than likely sailed through life, with the previlege they take as granted.


 
Been there myself. I was of course talking specifically about youngsters wanting to do something for themselves outwith work and school.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is it fong?


I don't think so.  But I don't remember reading many of fong's posts, so might be mistaken about that.  Let Zabo be Zabo for now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I don't think so. But I don't remember reading many of fong's posts, so might be mistaken about that. Let Zabo be Zabo for now.


I think he's just a shit poster who doesn't know how out of his depth he is.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I like you Mungy -as I said the other night.
> 
> What I meant to say - which I hoped you'd understand - was you were being very specific in the choice of your comparisons. Thus being selective and of course subjective. It is useful maybe to support your argument but it negates all other comparisons which may be equally valid. That however seems to be the way with Urban - with a few exceptions.


 
Your first post on this thread was very specific, selective and of course subjective in the example you chose to include.

Your question was were we rich enough and should we continue to provide benefits  to your example to enable them to meet their basic needs.  My answer is yes we are, we should and we, as a society through the state, should do more than just that to support them.   

This government are not trying to empower anyone even close to fitting your example.  They only seek to strengthen their own power, protect their own privilege and line their own pockets.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

quimcunx I don't disagree with you for a moment about the current government. It still begs the question, regardless of government, for how long or how many years should these entitlements/benefits last? I'm thinking in terms of Beveridge.

There is an assumption in many of the posts that all parents don't want to return or start work once their child or children have commenced school - part time or otherwise. I can assure you that the people I have been in contact with look forward to going to work and supplementing their benefits. Why not if that's what they want?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think he's just a shit poster who doesn't know how out of his depth he is.


Possibly that too, although that's not consistent enough to really be them.  Whoever it is, IMHO they're trying to post slightly out of character.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> <snip>regardless of government, for how long or how many years should these entitlements/benefits last?


As long as those benefits are needed.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 28, 2012)

These are not reforms of the welfare state, but a direct attack on the poor and vulnerable, who are struggling as it is. If you can't see this then your either complicit, or very dumb.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> quimcunx I don't disagree with you for a moment about the current government. It still begs the question, regardless of government, for how long or how many years should these entitlements/benefits last? I'm thinking in terms of Beveridge.


For as long as they are needed


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> And what would you know about a Pupil Referral Unit? Probably sweet fuck all other than what you discuss down at the pub or some empty bus shelter.
> 
> Any thoughts on what you would do with the teenagers who have been booted out of school because the school failed them?


 
My best mate spent 2 years attending one. His opinion? Staffed by sadistic cunts who were extra-sadistic if you happened to be black.



> Any thoughts on what you would do with the kids who are neglected and abused by parents? Any ideas of the positive work that some of these units do? Do you know anything about the units that actually get young people settled into jobs and accommodation? Have you any idea what it is like to work with a young teenager who has been fucked around by the system and their own family? Have you visited every unit in the U.K.? Have you fuck. You know nothing other than to trot out gross stereotypes and piss poor political clichés.


 
Enjoying your self-administered ego massage?



> Grow up and fuck off back to the Twittersphere until you can learn to create a constructive argument based on experience and knowledge. Maybe one day you will be able to think up something positive that you would do to help kids other than writing the shite you do.


 
If only you could enforce the same standards on yourself as you demand of others, eh?



> We won't hold our breath.


 
That ego massage seems to have left you thinking you're royalty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Who gets four bedroomed properties where the rent is only £60?


 
MPs, after they've claimed all their allowances?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Interesting Mungy. I don't visualise people in a pile be it a pyramid or some other geometric shape. It suggests less than and more than. How about spectrum or continuum?


How about wheel of fortune?  There's always somebody at the top and somebody at the bottom, but ideally nobody remains privileged or put upon for very long.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 28, 2012)

Soon he'll start mentioning books he's never read.  Or has it already happened?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Soon he'll start mentioning books he's never read. Or has it already happened?


Yes it has - _Moliere_.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Soon he'll start mentioning books he's never read. Or has it already happened?


 
Well he started off mentioning things he knows fuck all about...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 28, 2012)

Makes a refreshing change.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

audiotech said:


> These are not reforms of the welfare state, but a direct attack on the poor and vulnerable, who are struggling as it is. If you can't see this then your either complicit, or very dumb.


 
I do see it very clearly  along with the destruction of all the other benefits, pensions, incapacity benefits etc.

For the last time I''m talking specifically about one benefit and for how many years it should be given without the recipient returning to work.

There are those on here who feel for a number of reasons that it should be paid for as long as it is needed. With that I disagree. Would the Labour Party agree to paying benefits or seeing benefits as an entitlement without there ever being a time constraint? You tell me.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I do see it very clearly along with the destruction of all the other benefits, pensions, incapacity benefits etc.
> 
> For the last time I''m talking specifically about one benefit and for how many years it should be given without the recipient returning to work.
> 
> There are those on here who feel for a number of reasons that it should be paid for as long as it is needed. With that I disagree. Would the Labour Party agree to paying benefits or seeing benefits as an entitlement without there ever being a time constraint? You tell me.


 
Moving the goalposts now.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> There is an assumption in many of the posts that all parents don't want to return or start work once their child or children have commenced school - part time or otherwise. I can assure you that the people I have been in contact with look forward to going to work and supplementing their benefits. Why not if that's what they want?


If some parents wish to return to work, let them.  If properly funded good quality childcare enables that, then make it statefunded and free to anyone who needs it. 

If going out to work is so enjoyable and satisfying, there's no need to coerce anyone into taking up employment.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Soon he'll start mentioning books he's never read. Or has it already happened?


 
Really? Example?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it has - _Moliere_.


Maybe he read that author in another life.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Really? Example?


 
Your turn-around on the book thread a few days ago.  It's Russian history 101.  I suppose we could include films as well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Greebo said:


> And you're stonewalling again. Go back and answer the question, sweetie.


 
He can't.


----------



## Mungy (Jun 28, 2012)

More than, less than, spectrum. All amounts to the same thing. As the discussions has moved on, let us not linger on semantics. 




			
				Zabo said:
			
		

> how long or how many years should these entitlements/benefits last?


 
as long as they are needed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Your turn-around on the book thread a few days ago. It's Russian history 101. I suppose we could include films as well.


Oh we could.What book thread btw?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He can't.


He can, but he prefers not to.  Because he doesn't like being wrong, let alone found out.  And now my spidey sense really is tingling.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Your turn-around on the book thread a few days ago. It's Russian history 101. I suppose we could include films as well.


 
You mean this:

"Very dark and very outrageous. A dystopian Russia in 2028. A marvellous metaphor for Putin's Russia. The final caterpillar scene is hilarious."

Your comment: "Sounds a bit gash with the man of the 'dog's head and broom' reference."

Followed by:

"It's not too bad. A few good lines here and there but not the usual biting satire as exemplified by a few other Soviet writers. I'd need to have a good flick through before I read any of his other works."

And then this peculiar insertion:

"Putinism back to the future as the Mongol-Byzantine Muscovite political tradition? The Siloviki as Ivan Grozny's enforcers, terrorising the nobility as the state is rearranged? A severed dog's head stuck on a red Mercedes instead of hanging from a black horse's saddle? Maybe I'm doing a Khrushchev vis-a-vis Pasternak, and I don't mean any personal offence here, but yawn.

Also, drop support for that cunt Alexei Navalny. Just because some naive Oxbridge morons at the friend of a friend BBC or Guardian say he's ace, he isn't. He happily holds hands with vile Holocaust deniers and the murderers of immigrant workers."

Not what I'd class as a turn-around rather a response to your comment. As for Alexei Navalny. It did not make any sense nor had any connection with the book. A litle bit of _bragadoccio_ on your part.

I assume you have not read it but feel compelled to jump into any thread that mentions Russia. That's all I can conclude along with your posts and comments from others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> YMU. You may or may not be aware but I gave up on Butchers over a year ago. He is nothing but an fukwit. In fact I am inclined to but him on ignore because he never has anything to say.


 
Or, and I'm throwing this in as a wild card, you're simply not equipped, regardless of your self-regard, to understand what he's saying?



> I take it you know something about psychotherapy and counselling and possibly something about transactional analysis. If yes then you would realise that the one who constantly asks the equations is the one who seeks power. That in sum is Butchers. Why his type seek power by being the questioner I shall leave to your imagination.


 
Psycho-babble, I love it. I could probably "diagnose" all sorts of rubbish from your various witterings on Urban, but as it's something I actually know about, and I have standards, I won't. It demeans the discipline.



> Apropos your article. I shall give it some thought later. Oh yes! I will not obviously answer every single post because some of them need to get outside and get some fresh air. I mean...quoting fucking Marx and all the rest of the dead men in this 21st century suggests they are bereft of original ideas. Not responding may encourage them to enjoy a few gulps of fresh air.


 
Are you stupid?
You only go forward by learning about the past and incorporating the lessons it teaches you. Disregard what's already been done and you run the risk of endlessly repeating history rather than advancing.
But hey, if you've got such a downer on Marx, go right ahead and fuck yourself over. Just don't take anyone else with you, eh?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> quimcunx I don't disagree with you for a moment about the current government. It still begs the question, regardless of government, for how long or how many years should these entitlements/benefits last? I'm thinking in terms of Beveridge.
> 
> There is an assumption in many of the posts that all parents don't want to return or start work once their child or children have commenced school - part time or otherwise. I can assure you that the people I have been in contact with look forward to going to work and supplementing their benefits. Why not if that's what they want?


 
As long as required. There are few people who would prefer no work but being skint over working and not being skint. also people's psychological well-being is correlated with having a sense of worth, dignity etc. Paid employment can play a part in that but it's no one size fits all solution to a lack of esteem dignity etc. If the state provides support beyond benefits then many of the people you seem so concerned about may well go on to choose to seek paid employment. For the ones that don't I say keep giving them suitable benefits.

I haven't seen that assumption in any posts but your own. You seem to have twisted or completely made up what other people have said into what you want people to say in your little fantasy argument where you are crowned king. I support any parent who wants to work while also bringing up children.

e2a: and what the fuck has the labour party got to do with my, or anyone here's  opinions on benefits?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Greebo said:


> He can, but he prefers not to. Because he doesn't like being wrong, let alone found out. And now my spidey sense really is tingling.


 
Which is why he can't. It'd provoke massive cognitive dissonance and possibly a mega brain-fart.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> <snip>There are those on here who feel for a number of reasons that it should be paid for as long as it is needed. With that I disagree.


Why?


Zabo said:


> Would the Labour Party agree to paying benefits or seeing benefits as an entitlement without there ever being a time constraint? You tell me.


The government (not only the labour party) has done so before, if you ignore the assumed time constraint of "only payable as long as it is needed.".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Well if you and others didn't ask so many inane questions and if I stopped being fool in answering them there would be less - just like the science and tablet posts.


 
Ah, it's always someone elses' fault is it?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is why he can't. It'd provoke massive cognitive dissonance and possibly a mega brain-fart.


Which somewhat confirms my guess.  He could do a lot better than this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I blame it on Molière - no relation to Jane Eyre before you ask.


 
That wasn't funny even when Griff Rhys-Jones used it 30 years ago.


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Chilango. "Get on with it kids!"



...and?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is it fong?


 
Can't be. Hasn't mentioned Hackney, his dad or that he teaches music to urban yout'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Nothing but the best!


 
Mate, "best" is relative where those four are concerned!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In which one end of the continuum represents more of something and the other less of something. Jesu - help me tonight.


 
Papist!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Zabo said:


> *There is an assumption in many of the posts that all parents don't want to return or start work once their child or children have commenced school - part time or otherwise*. I can assure you that the people I have been in contact with look forward to going to work and supplementing their benefits. Why not if that's what they want?


 
You won't mind posting, say, half a dozen examples from these "many posts" then, will you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> For as long as they are needed


 
I strongly suspect that Zabo hasn't read the Beveridge report. If he had, he'd know that one of the principles that it wished its' recommendations be viewed with reference to was that "..the state should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, *it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family*" (my emphasis).
Now, the way that was understood from 1946 until roughly 40 years later was that while you encouraged people to work (via the Labour Exchange, and later the Job Centre, etc), you didn't and shouldn't compel them, that if they were happy to get by on thruppence ha'penny, then let them get on with it.
Zabo, on the other hand, appears to desire collective punishment measures against entire families if a parent doesn't accede to compulsion.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> You are missing the point entirely. Much of the 'I'm entitled to everything culture' is a smokescreen for lack of confidence. Cutting people off is not going to magically instill them with confidence and dignity. In fact it will take away their dignity and place their children at far greater risk of all sorts of things; do you really want to see malnourished kids roaming the streets in vast numbers, in far higher numbers than already happens already?
> 
> What we need is more funding, better access to the sorts of services you describe, not arbitrarily cutting people off and leaving them alone. All the playgroups in the world are going to be of no use if nobody has any money to pay their rent or feed themselves.


 

Just watched 'Coming Here Soon, on BBC3, terrifying to see what happens when the welfare state is demolished, they have closed the whole Athens social housing dept down and are selling up the housing stock, Stacy watched a a worker from the dept who was on the brink of jumping to her death, what a prick you are Zabo if you want that here, if you do...


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Count yourself lucky that I'd regard it as a serious breach of netiquette to say who I strongly suspect you are, Zabo. Kindly desist from stonewalling, you're good at it, but it's becoming tedious.


 
C'mon, spill the beans...


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

On Q/T tonight, Paddy Pantsdown robustly supported Camerons plans as did to a degree Hodge, what was just as distrurbing was the vitriol and bile towards claimants from a large part of the QT audience, including many migrants, etc, definitely more than usual support for benefit cuts on the show, is it because it was Luton?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> On QT tonight, Paddy Pantsdown robustly supported camerons plans as did to a degree Hodge, what was just as was the vitriol and bile towards claimanst from a large part of the QT audience, including many migrants, etc, definitely more than usual on the show, is it because it was Luton?


Harman. It was a nasty nasty QT. Well, openly nasty anyway, same assumptions always there.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

No it was Margaret Hodge...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> No it was Margaret Hodge...


No it wasn't. It was tessa jowell.  who looks like harman


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

oops, nah it was Tessa Jowell, the Blairite..


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

As opposed to harman or hodge the bevanite.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> ...what was just as distrurbing was the vitriol and bile towards claimants from a large part of the QT audience


 
They'll find out before too long why they were mistaken. We all will.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> They'll find out before too long why they were wrong. We all will.


The plan isn't to put people on benefits - it's not even to put people off benefits. It's to integrate the benefits system with the wage.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

I really don't think the audience was representative of public opinion, especially on under 25's losing HB, its going to affect too many people not to impact on many families, even middle class ones...


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The plan isn't to put people on benefits - it's not even to put people off benefits. It's to integrate the benefits system with the wage.


 
please expand...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> please expand...


They don't want people on benefits.
They accept that some people will be on benefits
The want to connect those benefits with wage labour (either as part of the formal body, as part of the reserve body and acting as a drag on general wages or as replacement labour for council services).


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They don't want people on benefits.
> They accept that some people will be on benefits
> The want to connect those benefits with wage labour (either as part of the formal body, as part of the reserve body and acting as a drag on general wages or as replacement labour for council services).


 
You're talking about the Universal Credit, right?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

That's part of it, think larger ffs


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 29, 2012)

Zabo said:


> You mean this:
> 
> "Very dark and very outrageous. A dystopian Russia in 2028. A marvellous metaphor for Putin's Russia. The final caterpillar scene is hilarious."
> 
> ...


 
I found it odd that you very quickly changed your view of it to a rather tepid one.

That 'peculiar' insertion btw is my quick summary of the crap historical analogy Sorokin is using in his novel, gleaned from the review you posted a link to. Indeed, it uses imagery from that very book which you have 'read,' and I have not. As I say, it's just bullshit on your part, isn't it?

Navalny is someone you mentioned in a thread last year. Your recent postings just pricked me into reminding you about him and seen as you're trying too hard, and even if it appears tangential, I'm just offering a helping hand away from your seeming naivety. Or to put it bluntly: If you post utter crap about that country, in-between trying to pass yourself off as an intellectual, I'll pull you up on it.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's part of it, think larger ffs


I'd rather not, thanks, the implications don't bear thinking about. If I spell that out further, there'll be people calling me alarmist again. I think I know what's coming next unless it's stopped, I don't know how to change it, let alone stop it. I don't want to name it. But the possibility has been there ever since Universal Credit was first mentioned.

A tiny elite who can do whatever they like (even more than they already do). Everyone else under a double yoke of being expected to exist uncomplainingly on a tiny income on pain of being sanctioned, and being expected to work fulltime for even worse conditions and less protection than what casual employees currently get. Prisoners undercutting the increased supply of cheap labour outside.

Protest and dissent being allowed, as long as you don't mind living on fresh air indefinitely.

Claimants (which will be more or less everybody, including children of anyone on a low wage, people too sick to work, carers, and pensioners) treated even worse than they are now. Appeals against the system's decisions allowed as long as you don't mind living on fresh air indefinitely. This might not even going to end up as "work or die". It could end as "starve slowly outside or live inside, but either way you'll work until you drop".

I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You're talking about the Universal Credit, right?


 
No, he's talking about a fundamental shift from entitlement to qualification, and a shift in the employment system to an ability for employers to massively-undercut (as we've already seen with various "work programme" participants) their own employees through the use of a form of bonded labour.
And that's just the obvious issues. The ripples it'll cause (which the coalition are keeping very quiet about, and which the media either haven't cottoned onto, or are keeping _shtum_ about) will have far more fundamental ramifications in terms of our (that is, "the people") freedoms in certain aspects of our lives.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> oops, nah it was Tessa Jowell, the Blairite..


_*Dame*_ Tessa Jowell, dontcha know?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 29, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I hope I'm wrong.


So do I, but I suspect you're largely right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> _*Dame*_ Tessa Jowell, dontcha know?


 
There is nothing like a Dame, and Jowell is nothing like a Dame.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> So do I, but I suspect you're largely right.


 
Which is why I get massively annoyed at people who piss-arse around with the idea that if we, the people, only talk to our elected representatives, following the correct communications protocols, everything will be alright, and any "issues" can be sorted. They can't be, even if our elected representatives wanted that, and they don't.  The students back in 2010 had it right: Don't conform to their wishes, don't negotiate to use your right to protest, just get stuck in and do it, whatever way you can, and don't believe the main political parties, or anyone in organisations affiliated to them, when they say they'll help you - they've already shat on you, it's just that some people haven't noticed the smell yet.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> I think child benefit should be universal
> 
> However, I think that child benefit for any more than 3 or 4 kids is crazy.


With every post you further confirm to me what a clueless, loathsome dirtbag you are. Did you not even see the massive contradiction inherent in this but _one_  example of your continuing intellectual ineptitude?


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 29, 2012)

Nylock said:


> With every post you further confirm to me what a clueless, loathsome dirtbag you are. Did you not even see the massive contradiction inherent in this but _one_ example of your continuing intellectual ineptitude?


 
What most on Urban don't realise - as seen on QT last night - is that Urban is really the 0.05%.

If you think the State should dish out child benefit ad infinitum, then you really are even more out of touch.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> What most on Urban don't realise - as seen on QT last night - is that Urban is really the 0.05%.
> 
> If you think the State should dish out child benefit ad infinitum, then you really are even more out of touch.


I was quoting the contradiction inherent in your _own_ post you clueless 'mr one of the 99.95%' fuck....


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 29, 2012)

The impartial "left wing" BBC that is the voice of the nation. 
Question Time. LOL.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/pa...d-welcome-to-the-era-of-vouchers-for-the-poor


Well it looks like the most appalling and degrading form of welfare benefits: vouchers, will soon be a reality...

England, hurtling to be like the US...


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 29, 2012)

Nylock said:


> I was quoting the contradiction inherent in your _own_ post you clueless 'mr one of the 99.95%' fuck....


 
It's not a contradiction - it's quite simple really.  Im sure you can understand it if you think really hard and concentrate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> What most on Urban don't realise -* as seen on QT last nigh*t - is that Urban is really the 0.05%.
> 
> If you think the State should dish out child benefit ad infinitum, then you really are even more out of touch.


 
to thick to spot a rigged audience on a program well known for having rigged audience lol


----------



## Nylock (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> It's not a contradiction - it's quite simple really. Im sure you can understand it if you think really hard and concentrate.


Universal. Look the word up and it's meaning. Please do so before you make even more of a laughing stock of yourself than you are already...

Jesus you are fucking *terrible* at this


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 29, 2012)

Meanwhile, while suggestions to slash housing benefit are discussed, old Charlie boy receives an 11% rise in taxpayer allowance:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...per-11-rise-in-taxpayer-funding-16179039.html



> Charles's income from grants-in-aid and Government departments rose from £1,962,000 to £2,194,000, an increase of £232,000 during 2011/12.​He also saw his private funding from the Duchy of Cornwall - the landed estate given to the heir to the throne to provide him or her with an income - go up by 3% to £18.3 million.​The Prince's tax bill rose marginally from £4,398,000 to £4,496,000, an increase of £98,000.​​


​We're all in this together.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

'My take on the near future
A Day in the Life of John Dennison

As he poured himself a cup of tea the TV in the background, ‘That’s today’s summary from the BBC. For the news in full, weather and sports switch to BBC Premium; available to SKY customers only. Subscription details available via the red button or online..’
As a basic package residential customer he had no bandwidth left to check last night’s football results although access to the Government portal was always available for access to official sites only.The audible signal for an incoming text message beeped. No need to check, he knew what it was but it was a requirement that he acknowledge receipt of the message, ‘Bus leaves at 7 am, confirm attendance’. He pressed ACK.

As he poured a second cup of tea his ankle cuff vibrated for a second and the LED on it turned green – he was now free to leave the hostel.
The walk down to the pick-up point was little more than a kilometre but he would have to leave by 6am at the latest as some of the gatekeepers liked to make life difficult for those leaving the estate. They couldn’t hold him up too long as the GPS on the ankle band would be transmitting his position.
He put on his boots and jacket and then the blue hi-vis bib on the front of which was stencilled ‘DWP’ and on the back his ID code to make it easier should a Taxpayer have cause to complain.
It was still dark as he walked along the alley to the gate. It wasn’t too dangerous in the morning but in the evenings there were problems – Shapp’s Shanties had no street lighting. Lighting costs money and the Taxpayer has enough expense without funding non-essentials for those who don’t pay their own way.
He was lucky today, the gatekeepers were OK. They scanned his ID card and his ankle to ensure they matched. One of them printed out his pass whilst the other input the data into the DWP Workfare Access Service Terminal, colloquially known as the ‘Waster Watcher’.

The pick-up point was on the edge of town where the industrial zone was located. He approached those waiting , nodded at a couple he vaguely knew. The various coloured bibs, red for Community Payback, Green for Work Experience, Yellow for Volunteers and Blue for Workfare, tended to congregate in separate huddles although there was little by way of conversation,.
Today looked like it was going to be a good day as the mix contained more Volunteer and Work Experience than Payback although that wasn’t 100% guaranteed; if the DWP had received an urgent request from a Taxpayer they would be diverted from their standard routine.
He heard the sound of the engine as the Grayling Bus pulled up. It was a secured bus with barred and darkened windows indicating a journey passing through a Higher Rate Taxpayer area. He sighed; that meant a journey of at least 2 hours each way, time which didn’t count towards his duties so it was going to be a 16 hour shift; he hoped he’d built up enough credit to earn a lunch pack.

One of the Gangmasters started to call the roll. he was shocked into attention when one of the names called out was Mary, the name of his dead wife. He tried to forget as much as he could, the pain was still very raw. She had suffered from a chronic illness and when the Taxpayer-provided Health Credit had reached the limit set for a non-Taxpayer she had been left in his care. They had allowed him time off to watch her dying; of course this was added to his duty time which was why he was in the 12 hour duty group. He was weeping inwardly as they scanned him onto the bus.


No apologies for C/P this post from Arsene Knows on Guardian CIF, its great, prescient, and chilling...

clearly using 'A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich' as an inspiration...


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 29, 2012)

Nylock said:


> Universal. Look the word up and it's meaning. Please do so before you make even more of a laughing stock of yourself than you are already...
> 
> Jesus you are fucking *terrible* at this


 
Universal is universal, the number is limited - what is complex about that - even for you?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/pa...d-welcome-to-the-era-of-vouchers-for-the-poor
> 
> 
> Well it looks like the most appalling and degrading form of welfare benefits: vouchers, will soon be a reality...
> ...


 
This means war.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

Has anyone seen the old workhouse building in Walthamstow, (now the local history museum). Above the door it says "if you do not work, you shall not eat"

this is the way we are going, roll on the 80's, the 1880's that is, the final victory for neo-liberalism...


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

*National Week of Action Against Workfare*

Boycott Workfare | 28.06.2012 21:27

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/497546.html


Some people are taking it head on, good for them....


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Universal is universal, the number is limited - what is complex about that - even for you?


Not universal then is it.


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 29, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Not universal then is it.


 
yes it is


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

In Germany the latest welfare reform was ruled unconstitutional because 'Germany is not an economic unit but a place to live'
“The court said that it’s not enough to have food, clothes, and a roof – people also have to be able to participate in society, otherwise they become outcasts,”

admirable sentiments...


----------



## idumea (Jun 29, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Meanwhile, while suggestions to slash housing benefit are discussed, old Charlie boy receives an 11% rise in taxpayer allowance:
> 
> http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...per-11-rise-in-taxpayer-funding-16179039.html
> 
> ​We're all in this together.


 
I read that article right after 'Desperate jobseeker sets himself alight outside jobcentre.'


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 29, 2012)

idumea said:


> I read that article right after 'Desperate jobseeker sets himself alight outside jobcentre.'


 
Jesus, that's awful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Jesus, that's awful.


[cameron]it can't have been that awful, he could afford not only some inflammable liquid, but also a lighter[/cameron]


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> Has anyone seen the old workhouse building in Walthamstow, (now the local history museum). Above the door it says "if you do not work, you shall not eat"
> 
> this is the way we are going, roll on the 80's, the 1880's that is, the final victory for neo-liberalism...


 
The final victory but not in the way they think.

Never give up.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

'Do people think that one potential problem with a voucher scheme is that by removing cash it might not help families/individuals who are trying to learn to budget? For example, I can see the thinking behind limiting what the vouchers can be spent on, but something about it rests uneasily with me'

Laura Oliver in the Guardian, the new Lady Bountiful?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Do people think that one potential problem with a voucher scheme is that by removing cash it might not help families/individuals who are trying to learn to budget? For example, I can see the thinking behind limiting what the vouchers can be spent on, but something about it rests uneasily with me'
> 
> Laura Oliver in the Guardian, the new Lady Bountiful?


 
War.

I can't tell you how angry this makes me. Several people very close to me are already having their lives made unbearable by this government and its bullshit.

We have to stop them.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

Laura has just posted she was misunderstood, fairy enuff...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

Chicken





treelover said:


> 'Do people think that one potential problem with a voucher scheme is that by removing cash it might not help families/individuals who are trying to learn to budget? For example, I can see the thinking behind limiting what the vouchers can be spent on, but something about it rests uneasily with me'
> 
> Laura Oliver in the Guardian, the new Lady Bountiful?


Chicken for her - soup from the bones for the rest of us.

learning to budget - yes, that's why some people have less than others. Crap budgeting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> Laura has just posted she was misunderstood, fairy enuff...


Where? Who is she?


----------



## weepiper (Jun 29, 2012)

Fuck off with your fucking Milk Tokens. Fuck.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> Laura has just posted she was misunderstood, fairy enuff...



It's poorly-written, and a bit patronising, but she was saying that vouchers are a bad thing because they won't help people who are budgeting their money carefully. 

At least, that's one possible reading of it and, given that she says they don't sit easily with her, probably the right one.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Universal is universal, the number is limited - what is complex about that - even for you?


In the half-hour it has taken you to finger-spell your way through the definition of universal, you have still not understood what the fucking word means. Even by your own low standards that's piss-poor...


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Chicken
> Chicken for her - soup from the bones for the rest of us.
> 
> learning to budget - yes, that's why some people have less than others. Crap budgeting.



Yep.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 29, 2012)

There is so much wrong with vouchers I don't even know where you begin. 

-Doesn't help with understanding budgeting; if you're a kid from care or a vulnerable background, this is a vital skill you usually miss out on learning.  
-It won't stop people spending it on drugs or booze or fags or whatever it is the government don't want poor people to buy.  People will just flog them to each other.  How dare you want a pint you filthy poor scum
-It's demeaning and humiliating 
-It's fucking ridiculous
-It's fucking ridiculous


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 29, 2012)

I'm pretty sure vouchers probably cost more to administer than money but as long as people at the bottom get a good kicking and some supermarkets make money out of it who cares?
Never mind the small businesses that lose custom as a result.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> yes it is


In what way?


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 29, 2012)

Nylock said:


> In the half-hour it has taken you to finger-spell your way through the definition of universal, you have still not understood what the fucking word means. Even by your own low standards that's piss-poor...


 
Oh really!!  A lesson in English from someone from Urban.  I think not.  Nearly time for the famous #urbanoutoftouch tag.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Oh really!! A lesson in English from someone from Urban. I think not. Nearly time for the famous #urbanoutoftouch tag.


Clearly you need comprehension lessons from somewhere -so why not here? If your grasp of English is as awesome as you seem to think it is, then why not edit the original post to underscore this fact? 

...Or maybe it's time to introduce the #gunnerisanomark tag...


----------



## Mephitic (Jun 29, 2012)

A couple of my friends in America ended up on food coupons, through no fault of their own. In a land where you need a job to co-pay you families healthcare insurance and where unemployment checks only last a few months, food stamps & low cost housing appeared to be the standard for the long term unemployed or those suffering from a string of bad luck.

I saw folk in the local supermarket paying with food stamps on a regular basis, it was invariably accompanied with some level of hostility from those standing behind them in the check out line and sometimes a frosty cashier.. i.e. rolling eyes, muttering, or making snide and disparaging comments to each other that were clearly directed at the unhappy customer at the front of the line handing over the stamps. If the stamp paying customer was excessively fat, or Hispanic you could cut the atmosphere with a fucking knife.

Some of my American colleagues and friends explained it to me, because I'm British and thick. Apparently you make your own fortune so if you have no job, no healthcare insurance, no education, living in a trailer (wanking into a sock), and using food stamps then it is your own fucking fault, either your just plain stupid or your lazy. But either way fuck you, it is not my problem. A forty something, female colleague at work told me "why should i pay for some kids food because the parents are too fucking lazy to go get a decent job. No food but I bet you that they have a TV." A lot of of the people I worked with thought like this, I heard it applied to Healthcare in very much the same way, I found it (sadly) astonishing.

Cameron is (as we all know) a born leader malignant cancerous growth. I am confident that in his entire life he has never had to choose to pay either the gas bill OR the electricity bill lacking the cash to pay both. Of course the slimy fucker has never dreaded the sound of the post being delivered for fear of new red letters, or worry about putting your bank card into the atm in case it decides to keep it and tell you to fuck off. It is curious that we allow this cunt, who has never experienced these wondrous events, to decide on the welfare and treatment of those who have. But curiouser still, people buy into Cameron's rank *propaganda* and actually believe that by providing these benefits and allowing people to (just about) take care of themselves and their children, that it will somehow make them less wealthy.

£9.24bn spent on killing in Iraq and we're being fed this bollocks about saving money by giving out food stamps and cutting benefits. What a cunt.


----------



## toggle (Jun 29, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> A couple of my friends in America ended up on food coupons, through no fault of their own. In a land where you need a job to co-pay you families healthcare insurance and where unemployment checks only last a few months, food stamps & low cost housing appeared to be the standard for the long term unemployed or those suffering from a string of bad luck.
> 
> I saw folk in the local supermarket paying with food stamps on a regular basis, it was invariably accompanied with some level of hostility from those standing behind them in the check out line and sometimes a frosty cashier.. i.e. rolling eyes, muttering, or making snide and disparaging comments to each other that were clearly directed at the unhappy customer at the front of the line handing over the stamps. If the stamp paying customer was excessively fat, or Hispanic you could cut the atmosphere with a fucking knife.
> 
> ...


 

we can then go onto the issus with the way the food stamp ptrogram runs. people are only able to get certain sizes of certain brands, whether they want them or not, whether these fit their personal needs or not. the options aren[t exactly healthy from what i can see and a lot of it seems based on what manufacturers have lobbied to have their stuff included in the program rather than anyone's nutritional needs.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 29, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> A couple of my friends in America ended up on food coupons, through no fault of their own. In a land where you need a job to co-pay you families healthcare insurance and where unemployment checks only last a few months, food stamps & low cost housing appeared to be the standard for the long term unemployed or those suffering from a string of bad luck.
> 
> I saw folk in the local supermarket paying with food stamps on a regular basis, it was invariably accompanied with some level of hostility from those standing behind them in the check out line and sometimes a frosty cashier.. i.e. rolling eyes, muttering, or making snide and disparaging comments to each other that were clearly directed at the unhappy customer at the front of the line handing over the stamps. If the stamp paying customer was excessively fat, or Hispanic you could cut the atmosphere with a fucking knife.
> 
> ...


 
Now now Mephitic, this is a fine Christian nation you are talking about. And as we all know, Jesus despised and sneered at the hungry 5000 before doling out bread and fish to the filthy malingerers.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> [cameron]it can't have been that awful, he could afford not only some inflammable liquid, but also a lighter[/cameron]


 
I see Paul Staines, aka 'Guido Fawkes' expresses similar sentiments:



> Given the price of petrol, this was obviously a well thought-out plan.


​​​​


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> War.
> 
> I can't tell you how angry this makes me. Several people very close to me are already having their lives made unbearable by this government and its bullshit.
> 
> We have to stop them.


 
The thing is the consequences of the cuts are not being made explicit by the media, etc, especially on the young, eg, single room benefit, though of course they show attempted suicides in Greece on  prime time current affairs..


----------



## Mephitic (Jun 29, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Now now Mephitic, this is a fine Christian nation you are talking about. And as we all know, Jesus despised and sneered at the hungry 5000 before doling out bread and fish to the filthy malingerers.


 
OF course! Jesus! He'll save us! He always had a bit of a soft spot for the poor (and leopards, tho I've never understood why). I'll tweet him, see if there's any chance of him popping over and sorting this bastard Cameron out, hopefully in a painfully epic biblical sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> What most on Urban don't realise - as seen on QT last night - is that Urban is really the 0.05%.


 
Yeah, 'cos QT reflects "real life" opinion, doesn't it? 

You *are* aware of how QT gets its' studio audience, right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> to thick to spot a rigged audience on a program well known for having rigged audience lol


 
TBF, not a "rigged audience" so much as a self-selected audience. You have to phone up and ask for tickets when it visits your town.
Of course, I strongly suspect that the *locations* are "rigged".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Universal is universal, the number is limited - what is complex about that - even for you?


 
If it's limited it's not universal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Chicken
> Chicken for her - soup from the bones for the rest of us.
> 
> learning to budget - yes, that's why some people have less than others. Crap budgeting.


 
Soup from her fucking bones, the daft cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2012)

scifisam said:


> It's poorly-written, and a bit patronising, but she was saying that vouchers are a bad thing because they won't help people who are budgeting their money carefully.
> 
> At least, that's one possible reading of it and, given that she says they don't sit easily with her, probably the right one.


 
I did a fair bit of research into vouchers for asylum seekers, and the only people who benefit from vouchers are the private company that issues and redeems them, and the retailers etc they've made acceptance deals with. Even if they use a slightly-less-stigmatising "payment card" instead of vouchers, I suspect that differential pricing will creep into branches located in less well-to-do neighbourhoods even more than it already does.
Fucking Iain Duncan Shit is trotting out every fucking failed US welfare experiment of the 1990s, regardless of the fact that they failed. He really is a rat-cock.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> In Germany the latest welfare reform was ruled unconstitutional because 'Germany is not an economic unit but a place to live'
> “The court said that it’s not enough to have food, clothes, and a roof – people also have to be able to participate in society, otherwise they become outcasts,”
> 
> admirable sentiments...


It never ceases to amaze me the regularity with which the Germans manage to show up the UK...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 29, 2012)

Nylock said:


> It never ceases to amaze me the regularity with which the Germans manage to show up the UK...


 
Hitler had a specially translated copy of the Beveridge report with him during the final days in the bunker. He said it was superior to the German system of social insurance.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 29, 2012)

toggle said:


> we can then go onto the issus with the way the food stamp ptrogram runs. people are only able to get certain sizes of certain brands, whether they want them or not, whether these fit their personal needs or not. the options aren[t exactly healthy from what i can see and a lot of it seems based on what manufacturers have lobbied to have their stuff included in the program rather than anyone's nutritional needs.


sorry i replied to the wrong post


----------



## audiotech (Jun 29, 2012)

Don't watch this inane, BBC trite, but I hazard a guess there weren't any people on actual benefits given a voice on this edition of QT.


----------



## Mephitic (Jun 29, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Hitler had a specially translated copy of the Beveridge report with him during the final days in the bunker. He said it was superior to the German system of social insurance.


 
Because it was softer and more absorbent.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 30, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Don't watch this inane, BBC trite, but I hazard a guess there weren't any people on actual benefits given a voice on this edition of QT.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 30, 2012)

they are doing the equivalent of shit talking while stoned 

you could just imagine osborne sniffing his coke and going "That Labour Party! They want to discredit me, well, I'll discredit them I will, I'll fuck them all up *sniff* all of them"


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 30, 2012)

"how dare you go on strike you bunch of bastards, i'll fuck you up i will" *sniff*


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> they are doing the equivalent of shit talking while stoned
> 
> you could just imagine osborne sniffing his coke and going "That Labour Party! They want to discredit me, well, I'll discredit them I will, I'll fuck them all up *sniff* all of them"


You get stoned on weed, not coke


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 30, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> You get stoned on weed, not coke


i know but the policies they're coming up with are the equivalent of "great" ideas you get when smoking too much weed


----------



## Nylock (Jun 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> "how dare you go on strike you bunch of bastards, i'll fuck you up i will" *sniff*


*sniff* Fuck Gaspar Gomez and fuck the labour party! Fuck 'em all, I bury those cock-a-roaches!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because "his" taxes are paying for them.
> That's the usual cry of the congenitally-stupid fuckers who get a hate on for people whose circumstances have pretty much militated that they couldn't be anything but what they are.
> Of course, the old "my taxes" bollocks is...well...bollocks. Part of the whole "social compact" idea is that you pay _X_ to ensure a minimal social safety net for *everyone*, not just for "taxpayers", but *everyone*.
> And the reason this is done, a reason that utterly escapes the neoliberals, but that was firmly grasped by their predecessors, is that a little bit of jam buys an awful lot of goodwill, in terms of facilitating social control.


 
A little bit of jam - I like that & agree with it. I don't really want a revolution, work for those who can and a bit of a safety net for those who can't/won't - That'll do me. I'd be quite happy with circuses n bread as long as the bread's warby's and there's proper lion tamers in the big top.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2012)

Nylock said:


> *sniff* Fuck Gaspar Gomez and fuck the labour party! Fuck 'em all, I bury those cock-a-roaches!


 

'fancy a pasty Gideon- greggs finest mate, none of your Bakers Oven bullshit'

'Rushing to fuck. Fuck pasties. In fact we'll fucking well tax them. I'm the fucking man at number 11'


----------



## Quartz (Jul 1, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> I'll tweet him, see if there's any chance of him popping over and sorting this bastard Cameron out, hopefully in a painfully epic biblical sense.


 
I prefer Zeus's style myself. Although for the personal touch, I do have a soft spot for Athene's Aegis.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 1, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I prefer Zeus's style myself. Although for the personal touch, I do have a soft spot for Athene's Aegis.


Don't give me ideas.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 1, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Don't give me ideas.




So, how about smashed,
my dear Greebo, smashed to
a smear with Mjolnir?


----------



## Greebo (Jul 1, 2012)

Quartz said:


> So, how about smashed,
> my dear Greebo, smashed to
> a smear with Mjolnir?


Tempting, too tempting.  And it's coming up to a full moon.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I did a fair bit of research into vouchers for asylum seekers, and the only people who benefit from vouchers are the private company that issues and redeems them, and the retailers etc they've made acceptance deals with. Even if they use a slightly-less-stigmatising "payment card" instead of vouchers, I suspect that differential pricing will creep into branches located in less well-to-do neighbourhoods even more than it already does.
> Fucking Iain Duncan Shit is trotting out every fucking failed US welfare experiment of the 1990s, regardless of the fact that they failed. He really is a rat-cock.



Rule One when it comes to politics. Assume that politicians may be lying about the reasons behind a policy. From the Tory POV, if food stamps lead to higher profits for the major supermarket chains and a windfall for the company that runs the scheme, then the policy is a success. It doesn't matter if it completely fucks up the lives of the poor, they aren't a consideration. If it costs the taxpayer more it doesn't matter, because only the "little people" pay taxes anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 2, 2012)

ericjarvis said:


> Rule One when it comes to politics. Assume that politicians may be lying about the reasons behind a policy. From the Tory POV, if food stamps lead to higher profits for the major supermarket chains and a windfall for the company that runs the scheme, then the policy is a success. It doesn't matter if it completely fucks up the lives of the poor, they aren't a consideration. If it costs the taxpayer more it doesn't matter, because only the "little people" pay taxes anyway.


 
Unfortunately, Eric, your post is spot-on.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 2, 2012)

ericjarvis said:


> Rule One when it comes to politics. Assume that politicians may be lying about the reasons behind a policy. From the Tory POV, if food stamps lead to higher profits for the major supermarket chains and a windfall for the company that runs the scheme, then the policy is a success. It doesn't matter if it completely fucks up the lives of the poor, they aren't a consideration. If it costs the taxpayer more it doesn't matter, because only the "little people" pay taxes anyway.


Exactly. When ever in the history of social security "reform" was anything intended to 'work' from the point of view of the person who is meant to be receiving the "help". Of course it's not intended to "work".


----------



## teqniq (Jul 2, 2012)




----------



## 8115 (Jul 3, 2012)

There's a Centrepoint petition against this.

*http://www.centrepoint.org.uk/cuts*


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 3, 2012)

8115 said:


> There's a Centrepoint petition against this.
> 
> *http://www.centrepoint.org.uk/cuts*


thanks for posting - signed, and will be sharing.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 3, 2012)

8115 said:


> There's a Centrepoint petition against this.
> 
> *http://www.centrepoint.org.uk/cuts*


Done


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 4, 2012)

8115 said:


> There's a Centrepoint petition against this.
> 
> *http://www.centrepoint.org.uk/cuts*


Done


----------



## weepiper (Jul 19, 2012)

'The proportion of housing benefit claimants in work now stands at 17.8 per cent'

from here  

they never tell you about that in the Sun or on BBC Breakfast though.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 19, 2012)

Since housing benefit is being morphed into the universal credit, isn't it being abolished anyway?
Altho I don't think the tories want to unveil UC because its so flawed even they've noticed, I think they want to let Labour do it and deal with the inevitable disaster.


----------



## gunneradt (Jul 19, 2012)

weepiper said:


> 'The proportion of housing benefit claimants in work now stands at 17.8 per cent'
> 
> from here
> 
> they never tell you about that in the Sun or on BBC Breakfast though.


 
That's significantly lower than has been mooted on here previously


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> That's significantly lower than has been mooted on here previously


 
Is it?


----------



## gunneradt (Jul 19, 2012)

yes.  Someone earlier in the thread put it at 80%


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> yes. Someone earlier in the thread put it at 80%


 
Really?


----------



## scifisam (Jul 19, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> yes. Someone earlier in the thread put it at 80%


 
I saw something like that, but it's arrived at by not counting pensioners, the disabled and parents of young children, the kind of people that the govt doesn't count as unemployed unless it's convenient to them.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 19, 2012)

scifisam said:


> I saw something like that, but it's arrived at by not counting pensioners, the disabled and parents of young children, the kind of people that the govt doesn't count as unemployed unless it's convenient to them.


 
Yes. 17.8 percent of claimants are 'in work'. 20% of claimants are 'unemployed'. The rest are single parents of young children/carers/disabled.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2015)

He also fucked a dead pig.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2018)

from the grauniad


----------



## Slo-mo (Mar 30, 2018)

A piece of good news. I wonder what sparked the u turn? Sadly I doubt it was because the policy was unpopular with voters,  though I'd love to be wrong.


----------



## iona (Mar 30, 2018)

Still only entitled to lha shared rate (with a few exceptions) until you're thirtyfuckingfive if you have to rent private, but


----------



## Slo-mo (Mar 31, 2018)

iona said:


> Still only entitled to lha shared rate (with a few exceptions) until you're thirtyfuckingfive if you have to rent private, but


And working age benefits generally are still frozen til 2020


----------



## scifisam (Mar 31, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> A piece of good news. I wonder what sparked the u turn? Sadly I doubt it was because the policy was unpopular with voters,  though I'd love to be wrong.



Perhaps because of the 4% being turned down thing - means there's not really point making everyone jump through those extra hoops and paying for the admin just to deny the claims of a measly 90 people. Though that is more sensible than usual so there's probably some other reason too.


----------



## Slo-mo (Mar 31, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Perhaps because of the 4% being turned down thing - means there's not really point making everyone jump through those extra hoops and paying for the admin just to deny the claims of a measly 90 people. Though that is more sensible than usual so there's probably some other reason too.


When it comes down to it, I'd be willing to bet many of the welfare cuts have actually saved very little once you take into account the admin and the extra strain on things like mental health services and social services.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 31, 2018)

Councils administer housing benefit don't they? They're struggling enough without adding a whole other layer of assessment to housing benefit which most young people will actually end up being eligible for anyway.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 31, 2018)

8115 said:


> Councils administer housing benefit don't they? They're struggling enough without adding a whole other layer of assessment to housing benefit which most young people will actually end up being eligible for anyway.



It's different under universal credit.


----------



## Corax (Mar 31, 2018)

scifisam said:


> It's different under universal credit.


By default it is - but the option is still there for the HB portion to go direct to the landlord if the tenancy might be at risk otherwise.

Although yeah, it's the DWP rather than councils, but that makes no difference to the client.


----------

