Next Leader of the Opposition

[Molly]

Blair stole the centre and became a better opposition

 

Your skirt's showing.

 

Blair moved to the centre - how can he have stolen it when it doesn't belong to anyone?

 

And the Tories became the opposition, Blair and his labour party became the government.

 

Polotics should be based on beliefs and not the crap that present day leaders give out.

 

Cameron and so many other leaders would sell his daughters into slavery in order to win an election.

[Claridge]

Seriously? Not everyone is capable of feeding themselves actually. If you can't get a job because unemployment is high and you're not receiving assistance from the state then you're reliant wholly on charity.

People who work hard or have worked hard in their lives can feed themselves.I work for an housing association and  a good percentage of our clients are too lazy or stupid to get a job. In virtually all of those cases its their own fault. The left always seem to ignore the fact that a massive percentage of poor people are poor because of their own life decisions. 

[Buce]

People who work hard or have worked hard in their lives can feed themselves.I work for an housing association and a good percentage of our clients are too lazy or stupid to get a job. In virtually all of those cases its their own fault. The left always seem to ignore the fact that a massive percentage of poor people are poor because of their own life decisions.

So we condemn children to a life of poverty because they have stupid or feckless parents?

Typical fvcking Tory.

[Darkon84]

Your skirt's showing.

 

Blair moved to the centre - how can he have stolen it when it doesn't belong to anyone?

 

And the Tories became the opposition, Blair and his labour party became the government.

 

Polotics should be based on beliefs and not the crap that present day leaders give out.

 

Cameron and so many other leaders would sell his daughters into slavery in order to win an election.

 

The point about 'stealing' doesn't really matter much does it, he still moved to the middle and by doing so, won. That is the point Matt has been trying to make. Lurching well over to the left, surely won't work, when it's been proved that they were far more successful towards the centre.

 

Bit harsh, and also ridiculous last line there to name drop Cameron. Which other leaders would you include in that though?

[Dr The Singh]

So we condemn children to a life of poverty because they have stupid or feckless parents?

Typical fvcking Tory.

We give free education, training, apprenticiships, what the fecking else are we supposed to do?

[Claridge]

So we condemn children to a life of poverty because they have stupid or feckless parents?

Typical fvcking Tory.

No we stop dopey lefties providing an incentive to stupid parents.Or parent most of the time. Why should the majority of hard working people support lazy arsed people. Welfare state has been around for 70 years and achieved what? Weve got a women with 4 kids and 2Fvcking horse on benefits moaning for a bigger house.. Go and see real poor people before you defend them. (might be an eye opener)

[Danno]

No we stop dopey lefties providing an incentive to stupid parents.Or parent most of the time. Why should the majority of hard working people support lazy arsed people. Welfare state has been around for 70 years and achieved what? Weve got a women with 4 kids and 2Fvcking horse on benefits moaning for a bigger house.. Go and see real poor people before you defend them. (might be an eye opener)

What a horrible little Tory you are.

[Buce]

We give free education, training, apprenticiships, what the fecking else are we supposed to do?

Not condemning them to a life of poverty because of their parents' failings would be a good start.

Numerous studies have shown that children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds do worse in life, thus perpetuating the endless cycle.

[Guest MattP]

Your skirt's showing.

 

Blair moved to the centre - how can he have stolen it when it doesn't belong to anyone?

 

And the Tories became the opposition, Blair and his labour party became the government.

 

Polotics should be based on beliefs and not the crap that present day leaders give out.

 

Cameron and so many other leaders would sell his daughters into slavery in order to win an election.

 

Stole, moved - whats the difference really?

 

Politics should be based on belief but if you want to make a difference then you also have to adapt, despite how Darwinism is often described as "surivival of the fittest" what he actually often wrote about were how those that survived were not necessarily the fittest but those who adapted to the changing World.

 

I'd prefer the Tories to be more Thatcherite and further to the right than they are now but I'd rather see them move closer to the centre, be in power and implement some of the things they can do rather than spend a whole life shouting from the sidelines like every other fringe party doing absolutely nothing.

[Buce]

No we stop dopey lefties providing an incentive to stupid parents.Or parent most of the time. Why should the majority of hard working people support lazy arsed people. Welfare state has been around for 70 years and achieved what? Weve got a women with 4 kids and 2Fvcking horse on benefits moaning for a bigger house.. Go and see real poor people before you defend them. (might be an eye opener)

I'll just echo what Dan has said: if I said what I really think, I'd be facing a lifetime ban.

[Frank to be]

People who work hard or have worked hard in their lives can feed themselves.I work for an housing association and a good percentage of our clients are too lazy or stupid to get a job. In virtually all of those cases its their own fault. The left always seem to ignore the fact that a massive percentage of poor people are poor because of their own life decisions.

Frank thinks you're being rather silly there. There are many people who are unable to work or find work for a number of reasons. Not everybody has a cosy life.

[Guest MattP]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/anti-austerity-voters-poll-jeremy-corbyn-labour?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Polling undertaken for an independent review being led by Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP and former coordinator of the party’s 2015 manifesto, shows Britain’s voters do not back an anti-austerity message but instead believe the country must live within its means and make cutting the deficit its top priority.

 

The polling shows that 56% of those surveyed agree, and just 16% disagree, with the statement: “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”

Of those surveyed who voted for the Conservatives at the 2015 election, 84% agreed with the statement and virtually none disagreed. Amongst Labour voters 32% agreed while 34% disagreed. Ukip and Liberal Democrat voters agreed in proportions of 63% and 58% respectively.

 

 

[inckley fox]

People who work hard or have worked hard in their lives can feed themselves.I work for an housing association and  a good percentage of our clients are too lazy or stupid to get a job. In virtually all of those cases its their own fault. The left always seem to ignore the fact that a massive percentage of poor people are poor because of their own life decisions. 

 

No we stop dopey lefties providing an incentive to stupid parents.Or parent most of the time. Why should the majority of hard working people support lazy arsed people. Welfare state has been around for 70 years and achieved what? Weve got a women with 4 kids and 2Fvcking horse on benefits moaning for a bigger house.. Go and see real poor people before you defend them. (might be an eye opener)

 

Do people really still believe that the poor are poor because, invariably, they deserve to be poor?

 

Poverty is cyclical, so what about their kids? I'm not sure they deserve to have a lack of access to technology, literature, travel, nor do they deserve a lower standard education in a run-down inner city school, or not to be able to pay for further education. Maybe you'd be shocked by the number of parents even nowadays who pull the plug on their kids' studies, or who have never had the sort of culture of learning necessary to nurture their kids through their education. Or the number of kids who have to contend with irresponsible, criminal, unfit or infirm parents.

 

But I'm not sure you are saying this, in fairness. You say 'a good percentage' of people are 'too lazy or stupid'. How many is a 'good percentage' and, where that's the case, what more could society have done to make them less lazy and less stupid?

 

In other words, like Orwell once said, a lot (though by no means all) of the poorest people - as they were then - may well be lazy and too stupid to be useful, if you want to be utilitarian about it. I agree that simply maintaining them isn't a solution to this. But of all of the ways in which we can deal with this, abandoning them has got to be the worst way to break the cycle.

 

And I say this as someone who was raised largely on a council estate by a stepfather who was in and out of prison and who, with the benefit of a government grant and tuition fee exemption, was privileged enough to go to university. As for what the welfare state has achieved since WW2, well personally I'd again go along with Orwell and criticise it on the grounds that it sustains rather than empowers the poor, but you only have to look at the extent of social unrest and child mortality in the century preceding the War to have an idea why governments might wish to keep it around.

[leicsmac]

Stole, moved - whats the difference really?

 

Politics should be based on belief but if you want to make a difference then you also have to adapt, despite how Darwinism is often described as "surivival of the fittest" what he actually often wrote about were how those that survived were not necessarily the fittest but those who adapted to the changing World.

 

I'd prefer the Tories to be more Thatcherite and further to the right than they are now but I'd rather see them move closer to the centre, be in power and implement some of the things they can do rather than spend a whole life shouting from the sidelines like every other fringe party doing absolutely nothing.

 

You're spot on here, Matt. Sticking to your guns is a fine thing but in any healthy political system eventually you do have to compromise to get anywhere.

 

 

Do people really still believe that the poor are poor because, invariably, they deserve to be poor?

 

Poverty is cyclical, so what about their kids? I'm not sure they deserve to have a lack of access to technology, literature, travel, nor do they deserve a lower standard education in a run-down inner city school, or not to be able to pay for further education. Maybe you'd be shocked by the number of parents even nowadays who pull the plug on their kids' studies, or who have never had the sort of culture of learning necessary to nurture their kids through their education. Or the number of kids who have to contend with irresponsible, criminal, unfit or infirm parents.

 

But I'm not sure you are saying this, in fairness. You say 'a good percentage' of people are 'too lazy or stupid'. How many is a 'good percentage' and, where that's the case, what more could society have done to make them less lazy and less stupid?

 

In other words, like Orwell once said, a lot (though by no means all) of the poorest people - as they were then - may well be lazy and too stupid to be useful, if you want to be utilitarian about it. I agree that simply maintaining them isn't a solution to this. But of all of the ways in which we can deal with this, abandoning them has got to be the worst way to break the cycle.

 

And I say this as someone who was raised largely on a council estate by a stepfather who was in and out of prison and who, with the benefit of a government grant and tuition fee exemption, was privileged enough to go to university. As for what the welfare state has achieved since WW2, well personally I'd again go along with Orwell and criticise it on the grounds that it sustains rather than empowers the poor, but you only have to look at the extent of social unrest and child mortality in the century preceding the War to have an idea why governments might wish to keep it around.

 

This is spot on too. I'd even say that there still isn't anywhere near a level playing field when it comes to opportunity based on heredity (very important) and money (quite important) as well as luck, despite our best efforts. I've no doubt there are the feckless and lazy amongst the poor, but those talented and aspirational amongst them are already disadvantaged just by virtue of where and to whom they were born - that needs to be made better, not worse.

[inckley fox]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/anti-austerity-voters-poll-jeremy-corbyn-labour?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Polling undertaken for an independent review being led by Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP and former coordinator of the party’s 2015 manifesto, shows Britain’s voters do not back an anti-austerity message but instead believe the country must live within its means and make cutting the deficit its top priority.

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, and you're probably right, but I can't help but feel that people tend to agree with statements like 'we should live within our means' as easily as they agree with statements like 'education and healthcare should be a greater priority than a thriving business sector' because both, in a very simplistic way, make sense.

 

I mean, we've maintained a national debt since the 17th century and will, like most countries, continue to maintain a debt. I'm not sure most people know what it actually entails, they just look at it as debt = mismanagement; rather than focusing on more important factors like standard of living. In the same way, I suspect elections have more to do with simplistic things like personality and what the press tells them will make them better off, or drive them to ruin, than any reasoned, educated assessment of what will or won't improve their lives (not that I'm saying Corbyn, or any of the other candidates, would improve their lives!).

 

That sounds like I think the electorate are dumb, doesn't it? Oh dear.

[Guest MattP]

I understand what you're saying, and you're probably right, but I can't help but feel that people tend to agree with statements like 'we should live within our means' as easily as they agree with statements like 'education and healthcare should be a greater priority than a thriving business sector' because both, in a very simplistic way, make sense.

 

I mean, we've maintained a national debt since the 17th century and will, like most countries, continue to maintain a debt. I'm not sure most people know what it actually entails, they just look at it as debt = mismanagement; rather than focusing on more important factors like standard of living. In the same way, I suspect elections have more to do with simplistic things like personality and what the press tells them will make them better off, or drive them to ruin, than any reasoned, educated assessment of what will or won't improve their lives (not that I'm saying Corbyn, or any of the other candidates, would improve their lives!).

 

That sounds like I think the electorate are dumb, doesn't it? Oh dear.

 

We have but what's important really is what percentage of GDP your debt is at, I don't think it was ever really above 30% before the first World War (can't get to google atm as I'm on a phon but sure that's about right) - it's at a level now where it certainly has to be dealt with in some form, I don't think anyone realistically sees us paying much of the debt in our lifetime but we certainly have to remove the deficit though because if you run at 90% of GDP for too long another Greece is never completely out of the question. It's obscene for a country to increasing it's deficit due to interest payments on it's debt.

 

Back on topic Owen Jones is is at it again How can you almost forget how ridiculous you looked just three months ago?

 

 

Owen Jones,

4 May 2015

:

“Russell Brand has endorsed Labour – and the Tories should be worried.”

Owen Jones,

4 August 2015

:

“The Right are mocking Jeremy Corbyn because they fear him.”

[inckley fox]

Stole, moved - whats the difference really?

 

Politics should be based on belief but if you want to make a difference then you also have to adapt, despite how Darwinism is often described as "surivival of the fittest" what he actually often wrote about were how those that survived were not necessarily the fittest but those who adapted to the changing World.

 

I'd prefer the Tories to be more Thatcherite and further to the right than they are now but I'd rather see them move closer to the centre, be in power and implement some of the things they can do rather than spend a whole life shouting from the sidelines like every other fringe party doing absolutely nothing.

 

Yes, I'd agree with pretty much all of this. I think democracy would benefit from the Tories and Labour offering starker alternatives but, while I haven't voted for a major party in 14 or 15 years, I understand that change hasn't, for a long time, been implementable by one of those major parties if they don't occupy the centre ground.

 

The Tories, I've always maintained, saved themselves under Hague and it's hard to see how Labour could do the same with someone like Corbyn in charge. Maybe he'll be able to persuade people to ignore the Murdoch Press, or business leaders or economists, maybe the Tories will veer to the right and he'll capitalise on the resulting public outrage, but I doubt it. If both main parties veer to the extremes, it will probably be a matter of time before someone remembers how many elections can be won in the centre ground.

[inckley fox]

We have but what's important really is what percentage of GDP your debt is at, I don't think it was ever really above 30% before the first World War (can't get to google atm as I'm on a phon but sure that's about right) - it's at a level now where it certainly has to be dealt with in some form, I don't think anyone realistically sees us paying much of the debt in our lifetime but we certainly have to remove the deficit though because if you run at 90% of GDP for too long another Greece is never completely out of the question. It's obscene for a country to increasing it's deficit due to interest payments on it's debt.

 

Back on topic Owen Jones is is at it again How can you almost forget how ridiculous you looked just three months ago?

 

Again, you're absolutely right. It's worth remembering that Labour made all of their sweeping late 40s reforms when GDP was at a historical high, and then managed to reduce GDP as well (though much of this was because the war was over - and the Tories certainly reduced it at a much quicker rate in the 50s). I wouldn't argue for a second with your logic, but I'm not sure most people appreciate that there have, historically, been many different ways of reducing national debt, nor do they really understand what national debt means!

[Claridge]

You're spot on here, Matt. Sticking to your guns is a fine thing but in any healthy political system eventually you do have to compromise to get anywhere.

This is spot on too. I'd even say that there still isn't anywhere near a level playing field when it comes to opportunity based on heredity (very important) and money (quite important) as well as luck, despite our best efforts. I've no doubt there are the feckless and lazy amongst the poor, but those talented and aspirational amongst them are already disadvantaged just by virtue of where and to whom they were born - that needs to be made better, not worse.

And 100s of billions has been spent over the years and hasn't worked. Maybe for some it's too easy not to work or have any aspirations for their kids

You're spot on here, Matt. Sticking to your guns is a fine thing but in any healthy political system eventually you do have to compromise to get anywhere.

This is spot on too. I'd even say that there still isn't anywhere near a level playing field when it comes to opportunity based on heredity (very important) and money (quite important) as well as luck, despite our best efforts. I've no doubt there are the feckless and lazy amongst the poor, but those talented and aspirational amongst them are already disadvantaged just by virtue of where and to whom they were born - that needs to be made better, not worse.

And 100s of billions has been spent over the years and hasn't worked. Maybe for some it's too easy not to work or have any aspirations for their kids

[Webbo]

What a horrible little Tory you are.

Have you ever attempted to debate anything rather than just throw insults about? You're coming across as a bit of a twat.

 

Not condemning them to a life of poverty because of their parents' failings would be a good start.

Numerous studies have shown that children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds do worse in life, thus perpetuating the endless cycle.

 You perpetuate the cycle if you never change anything, We've had 70 years of the welfare state and things aren't improving. If having workless parents mean you're more likely to be workless yourself, surely the best way to help is to force the parents to work?

[Guest MattP]

 You perpetuate the cycle if you never change anything, We've had 70 years of the welfare state and things aren't improving. If having workless parents mean you're more likely to be workless yourself, surely the best way to help is to force the parents to work?

 

**** off Tory twat.

[leicsmac]

And 100s of billions has been spent over the years and hasn't worked. Maybe for some it's too easy not to work or have any aspirations for their kids

 

The solution you propose is still throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Webbo]

**** off Tory twat.

I prefer the term "Tory cvnt".

[Guest MattP]

I prefer the term "Tory cvnt".

 

So do I, I love the fact people use "Tory" as an insult.

[johnny the fox]

One thing people have to realize is...when the penny finally drops,   Labour need a constituency of the poor and dispossessed or they are out of business... that's why they are for mass immigration, which is damaging the prospects of the working class of this country.. ..new migrants vote labour. A lot of the elites at the top of the Labour party are middle class graduates who have contempt for the great unwashed..its just a career to them..