# Another defeat for Govt in HOL this time on Benefit Cap



## treelover (Jan 23, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/bl...hold-benefit-cap-lords-debate-live-discussion

Wow, Govt lose another vote in the HOL , this is on the benefit cap, Bishops and others had an amendment to include Child Benefit in the Cap, this is very very significant, I expect the Govt to now ram it through the commons, and attempt to use public opinion as its battering ram...


----------



## spirals (Jan 23, 2012)

This pleases me


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2012)

Yes, the barrage of lies and misinformation from the Govt, agencies and the media was intense, its an important moment, does it weaken the Govt, only if the public starts to reject their propaganda...


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 23, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/bl...hold-benefit-cap-lords-debate-live-discussion
> 
> Wow, Govt lose another vote in the HOL , this is on the benefit cap, Bishops and others had an amendment to include Child Benefit in the Cap, this is very very significant, I expect the Govt to now ram it through the commons, and attempt to use public opinion as its battering ram...



Public support is massive


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2012)

treelover said:


> Yes, the barrage of lies and misinformation from the Govt, agencies and the media was intense, its an important moment, does it weaken the Govt, only if the public starts to reject their propaganda...


 
As more and more people end up out of work I'd say it's bound to. Much harder to demonise someone's brother, wife, husband, dad, best mate etc. than to point to fictitious single parent gay Muslim immigrants with 200 kids, no job, £150,000 a year in benefits and a council mansion.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Public support is massive



I'm glad you think that's funny. You fucking clap infested goat's cock.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> As more and more people end up out of work I'd say it's bound to. *Much harder to demonise someone's brother, wife, husband, dad, best mate etc. than to point to fictitious single parent gay Muslim immigrants with 200 kids, no job, £150,000 a year in benefits and a council mansion*.



You missed out lying bastard lazy toerags.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2012)

treelover said:


> Yes, the barrage of lies and misinformation from the Govt, agencies and the media was intense, its an important moment, does it weaken the Govt, only if the public starts to reject their propaganda...



ITV news, usually noted for its right wing sky-lite leanings, carried a very sympathetic piece with a good bit from a potentially affected single mother of two.

Thing is years upon years of anti-benefits shit stirring from the right wing press has entrenched the idea in politicians heads that its political suicide to do anything except bash claimants and the system.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2012)

ignore the troll people


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2012)

not long now.....


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm glad you think that's funny. You fucking clap infested goat's cock.



It's a statement of fact, there is massive public support to change the benefits rules whether you like it or not. Just for once Parliament is enacting the will of the people. Meanwhile the church and the LibDems attempt to attract new blood to their fading support.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> It's a statement of fact, there is massive public support to change the benefits rules whether you like it or not. Just for once Parliament is enacting the will of the people. Meanwhile the church and the LibDems attempt to attract new blood to their fading support.



Ah, ye olde "massive public support" canard. That "public support" or consent, to put a better way, has been entirely manufactured as DC alluded above.


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> ITV news, usually noted for its right wing sky-lite leanings, carried a very sympathetic piece with a good bit from a potentially affected single mother of two.
> 
> Thing is years upon years of anti-benefits shit stirring from the right wing press has entrenched the idea in politicians heads that its political suicide to do anything except bash claimants and the system.



Gary Gibbon on Channel 4 News says it is basically shadow boxing and that it will all go through the HOP, tbh, he seemed to be injecting his own opinion into the package, four defeats on any bill is significant, once it may have brought Govts down...


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 23, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Ah, ye olde "massive public support" canard. That "public support" or consent, to put a better way, has been entirely manufactured as DC alluded above.



It also has cross party support both in Parliament and among members of all parties.


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2012)

er, there has now been four defeats on the bill, the other NL ones went through on the nod...

actually with the gerrymandered one, its five!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> It also has cross party support both in Parliament and among members of all parties.


...and who gets to vote?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> ignore the troll people



Oh hell, it's not Steady Eddie again is it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2012)

to early to call, but the air of Have Your Say commenter is strong...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> It's a statement of fact, there is massive public support to change the benefits rules whether you like it or not. Just for once Parliament is enacting the will of the people. Meanwhile the church and the LibDems attempt to attract new blood to their fading support.



That's not what I took exception to, as you well know. The  suggests that you approve, or are at the very least amused by it. Cock doctor.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> to early to call, but the air of Have Your Say commenter is strong...



Hustings? That's my bet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2012)

Hustings was steaty eddie and a dozen others. TBH I've lost track of his many many handles


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 23, 2012)

Wasn't there one called Right Thinker?


----------



## Ground Elder (Jan 23, 2012)

Was one of them Alfhookam?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Wasn't there one called Right Thinker?


 
Silent Majority who ironically had plenty to say


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2012)

Its the same on CIF, returned trolls, though on the cap i think there are a lot of posters who are genuinely aggrieved by ''claimants getting more than them''


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's not what I took exception to, as you well know. The  suggests that you approve, or are at the very least amused by it. Cock doctor.



The  was an attempt to re-inforce your lack of knowledge about public thinking. There is massive public support for benefit changes proposals. As for cock doctor, I've just had a stay in hospital under that very heading. I told them if they had to amputate my dick to register it on Urban 75, it would be in good company.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hustings? That's my bet.


Oh dear, you and the other worriers are all wrong.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> The  was an attempt to re-inforce your lack of knowledge about public thinking. There is massive public support for benefit changes proposals. As for cock doctor, I've just had a stay in hospital under that very heading. I told them if they had to amputate my dick to register it on Urban 75, it would be in good company.



Nobody has said anything about public opinion being against the government soft lad. And if I were you I'd be worried about scarring on my forehead.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Oh dear, you and the other worriers are all wrong.



We need the rightone to put us straight I suppose.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> It also has cross party support both in Parliament and among members of all parties.



You're dissembling. Stop it.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 23, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Oh dear, you and the other worriers are all wrong.



Not half as wrong as you...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2012)

BBC's take on this one here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> It also has cross party support both in Parliament and among members of all parties.



So a minority of political hacks like it. So what?
As for the massive public support you've claimed, show us some evidence of this.
That's evidence, by the way, not the whinings of the ignorant, or the rantings of ideologues, or surveys that use samples of 1,000 in an attempt to divine the opinion of millions, but actual substantive data that the public "massively support" welfare reform.

You know what , Bhaji-boy? You won't be able to.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Public support is massive


like VP said, put up or shut up.
Evidence?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 24, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> It's a statement of fact, there is massive public support to change the benefits rules whether you like it or not. Just for once Parliament is enacting the will of the people....



Really?
‎





> This £290m per year saving – assuming it is not all swallowed up in additional cost of homelessness – will take an average £83 per week from 67,000 families which comprise 94,000 adults and 200,000 or so children. In reality we have placed 200,000+ children in poverty for a saving of 0.15% of the benefit bill.


​
https://www.facebook.com/groups/116432071735566/


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nobody has said anything about public opinion being against the government soft lad. And if I were you I'd be worried about scarring on my forehead.



Why would I want to scar your forehead?


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 24, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> like VP said, put up or shut up.
> Evidence?



Are you denying the high level of public support for benefit cuts or are you an habitual doubter?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2012)

It's your assertion. Back it up.


----------



## JHE (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm reluctant to intervene in a spat between an alleged 'troll' and U75's keen troll-hunters and troll-abusers, but there are opinion polls on the subject (and there are also opinion polls on the broader, and more interesting, question of people's attitudes towards the benefits system and benefits claimants).  They don't make cheerful reading.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2012)

oh aye, I'm not sure how the attitudes really are but I strongly suspect plenty of people have negative attitudes towards claimants of all kinds. On anecdotal level at least I encounter plenty of the attitude and have for years amongst people of all sorts. Is it a 'vast majority' though?


----------



## Pinette (Jan 24, 2012)

I honestly think that I live in a parallel universe.  After being delighted by the Lords decision to block the cap on benefits, there was the Daily Mail, the front page of which I read in the corner shop today, calling that decision a mandate for all kinds of nefarious skulduggery.  I couldn't believe it! I suppose it is just the nasty habitual Daily Mail crap which over simplifies everything, reduces us all to cyphers, has a dodgy grasp of reality and frankly gets on my tit ends. But this is a national newspaper and I would and should expect more reportage than the supposed views of mittel England.  It's a bit wicked, in my view. Very irresponsible. I had to read the front page twice, because I thought that Alzeimers might be lurking.  I couldn't believe that any responsible newspaper could take the view that it's fair and feasible to deny poor people access to benefits that they clearly deserve.  I'll go now but wonder why any intelligent person every ever reads that piece of shite.


----------



## JHE (Jan 24, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> oh aye, I'm not sure how the attitudes really are but I strongly suspect plenty of people have negative attitudes towards claimants of all kinds. On anecdotal level at least I encounter plenty of the attitude and have for years amongst people of all sorts. Is it a 'vast majority' though?



At the mo, I'm not going to dig out the polls I saw recently that I thought were more interesting and indicated that attitudes towards people to benefits had hardened against claimants, but I do have handy the day before yesterday's Sunday Times which has some YouGov poll results dealing specifically with the question of capping benefits.

"Are you in favour of placing a cap on the amount of benefits that people can claim?"
No - 9%
Don't know - 15%
Yes - 76%

Among Tory voters, Yes - 88%
Among Labour voters, Yes - 69%
Among Lib Dem voters, Yes - 66%

On the level of the cap wanted:
59% think the cap should be £26000 or below
36% think the cap should be £20000 or below

Does 59% count as a 'vast majority'? I'd say no, but I'd call it a very substantial majority.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2012)

It's because people believe that the lazy families get the proceeds - it's the lazy landlords they ought to be worried about


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2012)

cheers JHE. Once again we see the unholy lib/con consensus lol


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 24, 2012)

JHE said:


> At the mo, I'm not going to dig out the polls I saw recently that I thought were more interesting and indicated that attitudes towards people to benefits had hardened against claimants, but I do have handy the day before yesterday's Sunday Times which has some YouGov poll results dealing specifically with the question of capping benefits.
> 
> "Are you in favour of placing a cap on the amount of benefits that people can claim?"
> No - 9%
> ...



Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The last 4 years has seen my department ramp up the propaganda re benefits cheats. Lie through their teeth about how £1 in a cheats pocket is a pound out of a pensioners/sick persons pocket, which is an outright lie. It has seen the ramping up of departmental literature talking about benefit cheats whilst all the while keeping quiet about millionaires and big business not only not paying tax but doing deals with the govt to get away with it. The TV adverts showing 'scenarios' of cheats and a phone number with a story narrated by Ross Kemp and a phone number to ring to grass your neighbour having money thrown at it. Whilst at the same timre the phoneline that helped claimants make sure they were getting all the benefit they wer due was closed down. A diet of propaganda like this for 5 or more years is designed to do exactly this, soften up the public for these kind of attacks. Meanwhile.......


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2012)

I think the 'we're onto you' radio ads compete in orwellian terms with the ones on mid morning between Kyle where a single mum who has the boyfriend staying over for more nights than is allowed has the white targetting symbol over her. 'We're closing in on you'


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 24, 2012)

JHE said:


> I'm reluctant to intervene in a spat between an alleged 'troll' and U75's keen troll-hunters and troll-abusers, but there are opinion polls on the subject (and there are also opinion polls on the broader, and more interesting, question of people's attitudes towards the benefits system and benefits claimants). They don't make cheerful reading.


You're right, I'm only an alleged troll and the polls and surveys are there if most of those on this board would only seek. However, I doubt they would want to face the reality of widespread public opinion that might block their tunnel vision and jaundiced view.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 24, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The last 4 years has seen my department ramp up the propaganda re benefits cheats. Lie through their teeth about how £1 in a cheats pocket is a pound out of a pensioners/sick persons pocket, which is an outright lie. It has seen the ramping up of departmental literature talking about benefit cheats whilst all the while keeping quiet about millionaires and big business not only not paying tax but doing deals with the govt to get away with it. The TV adverts showing 'scenarios' of cheats and a phone number with a story narrated by Ross Kemp and a phone number to ring to grass your neighbour having money thrown at it. Whilst at the same timre the phoneline that helped claimants make sure they were getting all the benefit they wer due was closed down. A diet of propaganda like this for 5 or more years is designed to do exactly this, soften up the public for these kind of attacks. Meanwhile.......


But this isn't just about benefit cheats, it's about the level of benefits being too high and from many individuals point of view it's about paying taxes from a wage that goes towards paying someone more money than the taxpayer earns, ennit?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 24, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> But this isn't just about benefit cheats, it's about the level of benefits being too high and from many individuals point of view it's about paying taxes from a wage that goes towards paying someone more money than the taxpayer earns, ennit?



If people hear enough carefully seeded stories about benefit cheats they start to hear 'benefit cheats' in their head whenever they read 'benefits claimants'. That's what it's about.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 24, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> But this isn't just about benefit cheats, it's about the level of benefits being too high and from many individuals point of view it's about paying taxes from a wage that goes towards paying someone more money than the taxpayer earns, ennit?



It's very much part and parcel of the same narrative, the undeserving, the scroungers both legal and illegal. The deserving families and the undeserving families. I am sure you understand that narrative quite well


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 24, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> But this isn't just about benefit cheats, it's about the level of benefits being too high and from many individuals point of view it's about paying taxes from a wage that goes towards paying someone more money than the taxpayer earns, ennit?



Dontcha think this might have something to do with the incessant propaganda from the media - including the "left-leaning" BBC (ha!) - about benefit cheats and how they're essentially the same as benefit claimants/the unemployed/non-income tax payers etc?


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 24, 2012)

weepiper said:


> If people hear enough carefully seeded stories about benefit cheats they start to hear 'benefit cheats' in their head whenever they read 'benefits claimants'. That's what it's about.


Nope, I think that's what you and some others on here are "what it's about". Try looking from the small end of the telescope.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 24, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Nope, I think that's what you and some others on here are "what it's about". Try looking from the small end of the telescope.



Try writing a grammatically correct response, then we'll talk.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 24, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> But this isn't just about benefit cheats, *it's about the level of benefits being too high* and from many individuals point of view it's about paying taxes from a wage that goes towards paying someone more money than the taxpayer earns, ennit?



That is what it's been about, making this claim, attacking the 'undeserving' softening up the public for attack upon attack on the public sector. Coming hard on the heels of ESA (a disaster of a benefit), the attempts to remove DLA and change the criteria so people are removed from any extra help. All the while trying to move any focus away from the far larger amount given away to the undeserving rich by not taxing them properly, sacking tax workers so there's less people to deal with the tens upon tens of billions avoided in tax.... It's about using the  money taken from the 'undeserving poor' to plug the gap created by the deserving rich and their friends.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2012)

What about families where both earn and so pay tax but meet the requirements for tax credits because rents are inflated and wages too low? What about the fact that tax credits are in fact a government subsidy that allows business to pay the lowest earners too little to live? Who is laughing and living the life of riley? It's the big business interests who can continue to pay bang on minimum because taxpayers money is propping them up. You'd have to be some sort of mug not to see that scam. And what about those who work full time at low wage in places like london where rents are so high they still have to claim housing- who is laughing then? The landlords. Another obvious scam you'd have to be a mug to miss. In fact if you can't see that the greatest beneficiaries from tax credits are big business then you are thrice a mug


----------



## Pinette (Jan 24, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> What about families where both earn and so pay tax but meet the requirements for tax credits because rents are inflated and wages too low? What about the fact that tax credits are in fact a government subsidy that allows business to pay the lowest earners too little to live? Who is laughing and living the life of riley? It's the big business interests who can continue to pay bang on minimum because taxpayers money is propping them up. You'd have to be some sort of mug not to see that scam. And what about those who work full time at low wage in places like london where rents are so high they still have to claim housing- who is laughing then? The landlords. Another obvious scam you'd have to be a mug to miss. In fact if you can't see that the greatest beneficiaries from tax credits are big business then you are thrice a mug


I agree with you - I just had to say it out loud!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I think the 'we're onto you' radio ads compete in orwellian terms with the ones on mid morning between Kyle where a single mum who has the boyfriend staying over for more nights than is allowed has the white targetting symbol over her. 'We're closing in on you'



fuck thanks for reminding me why i almost never watch tv. i can't stand this shit. i want to go live in a cave sometimes.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 25, 2012)

I watch a fair slice of TV, I never ever watched Kyle though -- even when I wasn't working.

Interesting, and depresing (albeit not surprising!  ), that those Orwellian ads are on at such times and in the gaps between such programmes.

Fedayn and DotComm know the score here, amongst others.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> But this isn't just about benefit cheats, it's about the level of benefits being too high and from many individuals point of view it's about paying taxes from a wage that goes towards paying someone more money than the taxpayer earns, ennit?



Re-posted from another thread because it fits the bill.

Rather than pointing the finger at the benefits system, the coalition would be advised to look at the failures of the labour and housing markets; low pay in the former and high prices in the latter have produced the situation in which some poor large families now find themselves. It's not as if this is a new phenomena; historically poverty pay and inflated housing costs have squeezed people very hard. Going back to the 19th century solution, invoking the principle of less eligibility, is no answer; it didn't work then and it won’t work now.

 Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

Brinjal is probably making a killing from his rental yields, Louis!


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Are you denying the high level of public support for benefit cuts or are you an habitual doubter?


I'm asking you to substantiate your assertion with hard evidence.
That's how this 'debate' thing works.
well?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I'm asking you to substantiate your assertion with hard evidence.
> That's how this 'debate' thing works.
> well?


Good luck with that request, Streathers. I noticed that he didn't reply when I suggested to him that his assertion that there was "massive public support" for benefit caps was in fact, manufactured consent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Are you denying the high level of public support for benefit cuts or are you an habitual doubter?



Tell you what, you quantify the level, I'll tell you whether I deny it or not. Deal?

Of course, you won't, because you can't, because you're talking a load of arse that can only be substantiated via reference to crap surveys, partisan newspaper scribblings and propaganda.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

JHE said:


> I'm reluctant to intervene in a spat between an alleged 'troll' and U75's keen troll-hunters and troll-abusers, but there are opinion polls on the subject (and there are also opinion polls on the broader, and more interesting, question of people's attitudes towards the benefits system and benefits claimants). They don't make cheerful reading.



They're also heir to all the usual problems that polls and surveys have, and come with the same _caveats_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> You're right, I'm only an alleged troll and the polls and surveys are there if most of those on this board would only seek. However, I doubt they would want to face the reality of widespread public opinion that might block their tunnel vision and jaundiced view.



Anyone who thinks that polls and surveys aren't targeted to elicit a desired response is an idiot. Anyone who uses them as primary evidence of a widespread trend in public opinion needs their man-nappy changed, because they're obviously full of shit.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone who thinks that polls and surveys aren't targeted to elicit a desired response is an idiot. Anyone who uses them as primary evidence of a widespread trend in public opinion needs their man-nappy changed, because they're obviously full of shit.



quite - if you asked most people should people on benefits get 26k a year theyd say no

if you asked them should children be left to sleep on the street if their parents are made homeless theyd also say no

the two positions are incompatible in the current situation


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Good luck with that request, Streathers. I noticed that he didn't reply when I suggested to him that his assertion that there was "massive public support" for benefit caps was in fact, manufactured consent.


yep, surprise surprise, he's gone all shtum....


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> Brinjal is probably making a killing from his rental yields, Louis!



I dipped my toe into that pool just once. I spent a lot of money renovating, and carpetting a property only to see someone demolish the good work in the space of five months. I never made a penny on the letting and put the house on the market immediately, only to sell it at a loss.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I dipped my toe into that pool just once. I spent a lot of money renovating, and carpetting a property only to see someone demolish the good work in the space of five months. I never made a penny on the letting and put the house on the market immediately, only to sell it at a loss.



you must be tremendously incompetant then


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> yep, surprise surprise, he's gone all shtum....



Well strangely enough I don't have time to sit on here all day even though I may show as signed in. As to evidence of public support, someone else put results of one poll on here; perhaps you missed it.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

smokedout said:


> you must be tremendously incompetant then


Strangely enough I'm not. How about you?


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Try writing a grammatically correct response, then we'll talk.


Awwwww, diddums.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Well strangely enough I don't have time to sit on here all day even though I may show as signed in. As to evidence of public support, someone else put results of one poll on here; perhaps you missed it.


yes, and several have pointed out why that poll, or in fact any poll, can't be taken as conclusive or even reliable proof of anything, as you'll see on this selfsame page of the thread


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> yes, and several have pointed out why that poll, or in fact any poll, can't be taken as conclusive or even reliable proof of anything, as you'll see on this selfsame page of the thread


And of course had it shown the opposite, it would have been the truth, the whole truth and nothing but................. You asked for evidence of public feeling, you got it and you didn't like it. Get over it.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

Brinjal - the silent majority


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 25, 2012)

Brinjal - any response to my points re. the failure of labour and housing markets now and in the past?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> And of course had it shown the opposite, it would have been the truth, the whole truth and nothing but................. You asked for evidence of public feeling, you got it and you didn't like it. Get over it.


yes, and your 'evidence', for reasons extensively explained, is a steaming great pile of old pony that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously for a second. And if you'd bothered to do a bit of back-research, you'd find I'm a critic of polls of long standing.
Typical Tory - crap reasoning skills


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I dipped my toe into that pool just once. I spent a lot of money renovating, and carpetting a property only to see someone demolish the good work in the space of five months. I never made a penny on the letting and put the house on the market immediately, only to sell it at a loss.


 
Come hither, Thom Thumb, the gentleman requires that you play him a sad song on your tiny tiny violin


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 25, 2012)

smokedout said:


> quite - if you asked most people should people on benefits get 26k a year theyd say no
> 
> if you asked them should children be left to sleep on the street if their parents are made homeless theyd also say no
> 
> the two positions are incompatible in the current situation



Indeed. To hear some people rant on, you'd think we were talking about £26,000 in spending money. Why these people think that rent, bills, clothing and food are any cheaper for those claiming benefits than those who manage to bring in £26,000 a year on their own I'll never know.

The people getting rich by doing nothing are landlords, not the unemployed.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Come hither, Thom Thumb, the gentleman requires that you play him a sad song on your tiny tiny violin


that's worryingly witty for you, dotty!


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Re-posted from another thread because it fits the bill.
> 
> Rather than pointing the finger at the benefits system, the coalition would be advised to look at the failures of the labour and housing markets; low pay in the former and high prices in the latter have produced the situation in which some poor large families now find themselves. It's not as if this is a new phenomena; historically poverty pay and inflated housing costs have squeezed people very hard. Going back to the 19th century solution, invoking the principle of less eligibility, is no answer; it didn't work then and it won’t work now.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



This thread is about benefits not about housing and/or labour markets. The subject of benefits covers the the unseeming high level in some cases but, more importantly, the unfairness of many hard-working people being forced to pay for a benefit payments level in serious excess of their own earnings. Now it's a sad day if you don't acknowledge there's something wrong with a system that permits such a situation to flourish.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> This thread is about benefits not about housing and/or labour markets.





brinjalpickle said:


> Now it's a sad day if you don't acknowledge there's something wrong with a system that permits such a situation to flourish.



Oh dear


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> yes, and several have pointed out why that poll, or in fact any poll, can't be taken as conclusive or even reliable proof of anything, as you'll see on this selfsame page of the thread



Look at the poll again and take not of the amount of support for the Bill. It isn't as if it's a tiny percentage difference, it's a gulf. You don't accept it and I accept it as seriously indicative of public opinion.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> Oh dear


You're becoming almost constructive.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> You're becoming almost constructive.



I would say pointing out your own piss poor analysis above is pretty constructive. Don't tell me you're going to be one of those Tories who blusters a lot but can't put together why these things happen - 'nothing to do with the market, it's everything else'.

Up your game ffs.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> This thread is about benefits not about housing and/or labour markets. The subject of benefits covers the the unseeming high level in some cases but, more importantly, the unfairness of many hard-working people being forced to pay for a benefit payments level in serious excess of their own earnings. Now it's a sad day if you don't acknowledge there's something wrong with a system that permits such a situation to flourish.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 25, 2012)

We simply cannot carry on like this. Poor people are going to have to get used to being poorer.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> yes, and your 'evidence' for reasons extensively explained, is a steaming great pile of old pony that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously for a second. And if you'd bothered to do a bit of back-research, you'd find I'm a critic of polls of long standing.
> Typical Tory - crap reasoning skills



I'm not about to research your tainted views over however long and whereas you may think I'm a Tory, I'm most definitely not; don't even try to guess where my political allegiances lie.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 25, 2012)

You're just a shit troll.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I'm not about to research your tainted views over however long and whereas you may think I'm a Tory, I'm most definitely not; don't even try to guess where my political allegiances lie.



to the right of the tories, clearly


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

audiotech said:


>



You see, not a thought for those two little boys on the left.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> to the right of the tories, clearly


Nil points.......again.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

its true lol the do look like horses don't they?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Nil points.......again.



Seeing as I can only go on what you post here and seeing as all your posts here have been expressing very right wing opinions, I can only conclude that you're a cunt.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> This thread is about benefits not about housing and/or labour markets. The subject of benefits covers the the unseeming high level in some cases but, more importantly, the unfairness of many hard-working people being forced to pay for a benefit payments level in serious excess of their own earnings. Now it's a sad day if you don't acknowledge there's something wrong with a system that permits such a situation to flourish.


that's just empty-headed, regurgitated tory-by-numbers tripe which _totally_ fails to engage with the points made by Louis in the very post you quoted.
firstly, as Louis has explained -amply - the 3 are interconnected. Surely even you can see what the confluence of a recession and housing shortages wil do to the benefits bill.
The whole point of the benefits sytem is that it is based on people's fundamental _needs_, and if a family in an area of chronic unemployment need that level of assistance, by all fair reckoning, then so be it.
and 26k, in the south of England, is not a lot of money.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

They're just so lame aren't they. They must think that no poster like themselves has ever come on urban before, utterly fail to defend any of their arguments or offer well thought out posts, make themselves look like a dick, and then piss off again for a while/for good or get banned!

I'd prefer ones who can seriously defend even right-wing arguments, but these ones are just shit and resort to crap in under 30 or so posts.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Seeing as I can only go on what you post here and seeing as all your posts here have been expressing very right wing opinions, I can only conclude that you're a cunt.



Are they very right-wing or merely tilting at left on this board? It's a pity when your view is so jaundiced, you miss the reality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Well strangely enough I don't have time to sit on here all day even though I may show as signed in. As to evidence of public support, someone else put results of one poll on here; perhaps you missed it.



Did they expect to be taken seriously on the basis of the poll alone? Nah.
Did you even bother to mention a poll, let alone anything else to support your claim? Nah.

Stop whining, substantiate your claims, or take the cuntage you'll get for not doing so like a _mensch_.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Are they very right-wing or merely tilting at left on this board? It's a pity when your view is so jaundiced, you miss the reality.



I can only go by what you post.  You're a cunt.  Now fuck off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> And of course had it shown the opposite, it would have been the truth, the whole truth and nothing but................. You asked for evidence of public feeling, you got it and you didn't like it. Get over it.



No, he asked for you to provide evidence of the *massive* (your word, no-one elses) public support. You haven't, you can't, and now you're whining like a puppy with the shits.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> that's just empty-headed, regurgitated tory-by-numbers tripe which _totally_ fails to engage with the points made by Louis in the very post you quoted.
> firstly, as Louis has explained -amply - the 3 are interconnected. Surely even you can see what the confluence of a recession and housing shortages wil do to the benefits bill.
> The whole point of the benefits sytem is that it is based on people's fundamental _needs_, and if a family in an area of chronic unemployment need that level of assistance, by all fair reckoning, then so be it.
> and 26k, in the south of England, is not a lot of money.



I get considerably less tha £26K pa and I pay tax.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I'm not about to research your tainted views over however long and whereas you may think I'm a Tory, I'm most definitely not; don't even try to guess where my political allegiances lie.


as a) I haven't even put up 'views', tainted or otherwise, on this thread except to critique the sub-_Daily Mail_ tripe you've been parrotting,
and
b) everything you've posted here would be right at home at a typical suburban Conservative Party branch meeting,
I'll return the favour with interest.
you really are awesomely crap at this, aren't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> Brinjal - the silent majority



That's "silent" as in "spouts a load of ill-informed crap", I take it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Look at the poll again and take not of the amount of support for the Bill. It isn't as if it's a tiny percentage difference, it's a gulf. You don't accept it and I accept it as seriously indicative of public opinion.


oh ffs! READ THE FUCKING THREAD, and see why ONE poll can't be taken as gospel!


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I get considerably less tha £26K pa and I pay tax.



Not that I believe this especially as it sounds all too predictable for these sorts of discussions, but what about your property assets - you said you rented a place out before? And presumably you also own your own property?


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> Not that I believe this especially as it sounds all too predictable for these sorts of discussions, but what about your property assets - you said you rented a place out before? And presumably you also own your own property?



I have a mortgage. Anything else you'd like to know, don't ask.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> This thread is about benefits not about housing and/or labour markets. The subject of benefits covers the the unseeming high level in some cases but, more importantly, the unfairness of many hard-working people being forced to pay for a benefit payments level in serious excess of their own earnings. Now it's a sad day if you don't acknowledge there's something wrong with a system that permits such a situation to flourish.



Please substantiate and quantify "serious excess". An average person on JSA gets under £70 a week, not including HB and CTB, the supplements for dependents are correspondingly small.
Then how about analysing whether the housing market is a *cause* of "excessive" HB claims, and just how an individual or family can be responsible for a landlord manipulating the situation, rather than recycling tabloid gash?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> You see, not a thought for those two little boys on the left.



I don't even know who they are?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I have a mortgage. Anything else you'd like to know, don't ask.



About this place you rented out?


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> as a) I haven't even put up 'views', tainted or otherwise, on this thread except to critique the sub-_Daily Mail_ tripe you've been parrotting,
> and
> b) everything you've posted here would be right at home at a typical suburban Conservative Party branch meeting,
> I'll return the favour with interest.
> you really are awesomely crap at this, aren't you?



Well I actually think I've been rather good. Someone once said I could wake the dead and it seems like they were right. You and most of the others on here are hurtling around like you've had an itching powder attack........pitiful.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> It also has cross party support both in Parliament and among members of all parties.


no it doesn't; it has cross party support among parliamentarians and members of the 3 MAIN parties - all of whom are in thrall to the same neoliberal ideological mania that has brought us to the disastrous situation we face today. As each party's membership has been in freefall for the past decade, and their combined share of the vote at the last GE sunk to its' lowest for practically as long as anyone can remember, that doesn't say much for how well connected they are to public opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> its true lol the do look like horses don't they?



Neigh!


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> About this place you rented out?


If you read my post, you'll see I sold it and lost money on it. I sold it in a falling market when Noo Labour were in power.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> If you read my post, you'll see I sold it and lost money on it. I sold it in a falling market when Noo Labour were in power.



I did but tbh I think you're making most of this up already, so I'm just waiting for you to trip yourself up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Well I actually think I've been rather good. Someone once said I could wake the dead and it seems like they were right. You and most of the others on here are hurtling around like you've had an itching powder attack........pitiful.



Ah, the age-old "I've come here to shake you out of your complacency" gambit beloved of gobshites everywhere.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I don't even know who they are?



Who cares?


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> no it doesn't; it has cross party support among parliamentarians and members of the 3 MAIN parties - all of whom are in thrall to the same neoliberal ideological mania that has brought us to the disastrous situation we face today. As each party's membership has been in freefall for the past decade, and their combined share of the vote at the last GE sunk to its' lowest for practically as long as anyone can remember, that doesn't say much for how well connected they are to public opinion.



Then you should try to convince people you are right and persuade them not to vote.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

btw, smearing anyone who disagrees with you or logically refutes your posts as having 'tunnel vision','jaundiced views', 'tainted views', being a 'habitual doubter' etc., is not just intellectually cowardly, but the mark of a truly crap debater.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

This one is just really fucking appalling.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who cares?



Those who 'wake the dead' it seems.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> This one is just really fucking appalling.


Yep, he's like the proverbial stuck record.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Are they very right-wing or merely tilting at left on this board? It's a pity when your view is so jaundiced, you miss the reality.


you're judged by what you post, dumbo


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

Tbh my thoughts are still Hustings/Right Mind/Silent Majority in yet another guise/alias (although saying that I think this might actually be him ).

Banned returner anyhow.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

if you've seen one tory ...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Then you should try to convince people you are right and persuade them not to vote.


Increasingly, I don't need to. Do you know what the word 'turnout' means?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Well I actually think I've been rather good.


pity no-one else does. carry on deluding yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Those who 'wake the dead' it seems.



"Wake the dead"?

What's Eric Pickles' attempt to get an erection got to do with anything?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> if you've seen one tory ...



...there should be one less Tory a few minutes later?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

oh my god please dont, tories + necrophilia + keeping food down ...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I get considerably less tha £26K pa and I pay tax.


diddums. There's zero reason to believe you represent the whole country of 56 million.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Increasingly, I don't need to. Do you know what the word 'turnout' means?



That bit at the bottom of your trouser leg, right?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...there should be one less Tory a few minutes later?



i meant the old "if you've seen one tory you've seen 'em all..."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> oh my god please dont, tories + necrophilia + keeping food down ...



Sorry, froggie!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i meant the old "if you've seen one tory you've seen 'em all..."



I prefer mine!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2012)

me too


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That bit at the bottom of your trouser leg, right?



Ba-doom TISH!


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

stephj said:


> This one is just really fucking appalling.


Don't do yourself down.


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> diddums. There's zero reason to belive you represent the whole country of 56 million.


You can't even get the population right or are you omitting Scotland?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> Don't do yourself down.



I'm talking about you, not to you.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 25, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I get considerably less tha £26K pa and I pay tax.



hey, me too! AND I get Housing Benefit! Oh no, I appear to have exploded, because I am an impossibility according to you.


----------



## treelover (Jan 26, 2012)

'Message from the invisible'
http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/25/uk-uncut-welfare-tax-disability

Disabled people and UKUncut to protest the welfare reforms, looking for support, big event it seems...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 26, 2012)

I think its a shame that by doing the right thing for the country almost certainly this has served a double purpose.  The HOL will be looked at as being out of step with the 'public' opinion and therefore justify the reformation Cameron is going to push through of the HOL and at the same time ignore their opinion using the parliament act to force it through.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 26, 2012)

weepiper said:


> hey, me too! AND I get Housing Benefit! Oh no, I appear to have exploded, because I am an impossibility according to you.


Even now in the guardian they are making the distinction between "jobless" and "people in work" as if no one on any benefit is working (legitimately) and far less paying income tax.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> This thread is about benefits not about housing and/or labour markets. The subject of benefits covers the the unseeming high level in some cases but, more importantly, the unfairness of many hard-working people being forced to pay for a benefit payments level in serious excess of their own earnings. Now it's a sad day if you don't acknowledge there's something wrong with a system that permits such a situation to flourish.



Benefits which operate in economic, political and social contexts shaped by labour and housing markets (amongst other factors). Not engaging with this makes any meaningful discussion of benefits pretty thin and useless stuff. So why not have another go and think about the interconnectedness of wage rates, housing costs and benefit levels; as I said before looking at the history of their relationship may not be a bad place to start.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brinjalpickle (Jan 26, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Benefits which operate in economic, political and social contexts shaped by labour and housing markets (amongst other factors). Not engaging with this makes any meaningful discussion of benefits pretty thin and useless stuff. So why not have another go and think about the interconnectedness of wage rates, housing costs and benefit levels; as I said before looking at the history of their relationship may not be a bad place to start.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I think I'll leave it to you to dissect the relationships in the hope you can pin everything on anyone but the downtrodden public. You see, no matter how much you attempt to analyse what is wrong, you won't stop people going out and voting for more of the same; history says it all.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 26, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> You can't even get the population right or are you omitting Scotland?


do you have any serious points to make? and that's the 2001 census figure quoted, btw


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I think I'll leave it to you to dissect the relationships in the hope you can pin everything on anyone but the downtrodden public. You see, no matter how much you attempt to analyse what is wrong, you won't stop people going out and voting for more of the same; history says it all.



That's a longwinded way of saying ignorance is bliss; and its length doesn't make it any less stupid.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I think I'll leave it to you to dissect the relationships in the hope you can pin everything on anyone but the downtrodden public. You see, no matter how much you attempt to analyse what is wrong, you won't stop people going out and voting for more of the same; history says it all.



Don't be scared of your ignorance; Google the 'principle of less eligibility' as a starting point to see how wage rates and levels of benefit have been related historically.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 26, 2012)

brinjalpickle said:


> I think I'll leave it to you to dissect the relationships in the hope you can pin everything on anyone but the downtrodden public. You see, no matter how much you attempt to analyse what is wrong, you won't stop people going out and voting for more of the same; history says it all.


----------

