Next Leader of the Opposition

[Buce]

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?

In an ideal world, where we have full employment, you might have a point; but we don't, and never will. Therefore, there will always be a percentage of the potential workforce who will be unemployed and reliant on financial support.

When that financial support is cut to the level where children are disadvantaged (and Cameron changing the definition of 'poverty' hasn't made it go away), all you are doing is ensuring that they will be the next generation of those at the bottom of the pile.

You and I are of a similar age, Webbo, and are both fortunate enough to have found something that we are good enough at to earn a living, but each of us are just a health issue away (say you developed arthritis in your hands) from unemployment. I don't know about you, but I'd thoroughly resent being labelled 'shirker', 'skiver', or whatever catchy epithet the government dream up to demonize people out of work through no fault of their own.

For me, it's a question of morality: we are one of the top economies in the world. To see children's lives blighted by avoidable poverty disgusts me as much as it saddens me that otherwise decent people are blindly taken in by the right-wing rhetoric coming from this ideologically driven government.

[Webbo]

In an ideal world, where we have full employment, you might have a point; but we don't, and never will. Therefore, there will always be a percentage of the potential workforce who will be unemployed and reliant on financial support.

When that financial support is cut to the level where children are disadvantaged (and Cameron changing the definition of 'poverty' hasn't made it go away), all you are doing is ensuring that they will be the next generation of those at the bottom of the pile.

You and I are of a similar age, Webbo, and are both fortunate enough to have found something that we are good enough at to earn a living, but each of us are just a health issue away (say you developed arthritis in your hands) from unemployment. I don't know about you, but I'd thoroughly resent being labelled 'shirker', 'skiver', or whatever catchy epithet the government dream up to demonize people out of work through no fault of their own.

For me, it's a question of morality: we are one of the top economies in the world. To see childrens' lives blighted by avoidable poverty disgusts me as much as it saddens me that otherwise decent people are blindly taken in by the right-wing rhetoric coming from this ideologically driven government.

I haven't been taken in by anyone,I've given the subject a lot of thought and I genuinely believe what I say.

 

I've sampled a fair bit of poverty myself. I have relatives on benefits, I've worked in rented houses where the tenants are on benefits.Believe me, nobody is starving.

 

I've got to 50 and I've seen a bit of life. In my experience most poverty is self inflicted. If you pay people a wage for being poor don't be surprised if some make it a career option

[Buce]

I haven't been taken in by anyone,I've given the subject a lot of thought and I genuinely believe what I say.

I've sampled a fair bit of poverty myself. I have relatives on benefits, I've worked in rented houses where the tenants are on benefits.Believe me, nobody is starving.

I've got to 50 and I've seen a bit of life. In my experience most poverty is self inflicted. If you pay people a wage for being poor don't be surprised if some make it a career option

Fair enough, mate, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I have respect for you as a man and, for what it's worth, I like you, but I cannot respect your opinion on this.

No offence intended.

[Webbo]

Fair enough, mate, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I have respect for you as a man and, for what it's worth, I like you, but I cannot respect your opinion on this.

No offence intended.

I don't take these debates personally. No offence taken.

[Molly]

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?

 

You're confused. Politics isn't about winning, its about belief in how society should be. 

 

Blair and many others have won because too many people don't understand politics and political effect and vote on celebrityism. Most voters are mindless sheep led through life by the media and their celebrity puppets.

 

I like Matt and he thinks his politics through and has a belief system, I like Alf he thinks politics through and has a belief system. They are not the same belief systems and neither of them are "wrong". All 3 parties fighting over the same political territory is a joke, we've seen that all 3 major parties (before the last election) were basically clones and the voting came down to whether a person in the party fell over leaving a stage or whether someone else got a meaningless soundbyte on the air at the right time or whether someone else managed to falsely blacken someones name at the right time.

 

England has lost the meaning of politics. Better to have a left, centre and right party arguing from different standpoints even if the same "centre" party wins every time than the meaningless mush of celebrity similar parties.

[GaelicFox]

You're confused. Politics isn't about winning, its about belief in how society should be. 

 

Blair and many others have won because too many people don't understand politics and political effect and vote on celebrityism. Most voters are mindless sheep led through life by the media and their celebrity puppets.

 

I like Matt and he thinks his politics through and has a belief system, I like Alf he thinks politics through and has a belief system. They are not the same belief systems and neither of them are "wrong". All 3 parties fighting over the same political territory is a joke, we've seen that all 3 major parties (before the last election) were basically clones and the voting came down to whether a person in the party fell over leaving a stage or whether someone else got a meaningless soundbyte on the air at the right time or whether someone else managed to falsely blacken someones name at the right time.

 

England has lost the meaning of politics. Better to have a left, centre and right party arguing from different standpoints even if the same "centre" party wins every time than the meaningless mush of celebrity similar parties.

GREAT POST AND SPOT ON

[Molly]

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

 

Should we care if millions of people (old and kids included) eat poorly and live unhealthily whilst others can live to excess?

 

Should we care that poor families perpetuate poor families whilst the rich perpetuate rich?

 

Should we perhaps exterminate those who are long term unemployed or should we not help them so that they either take to crime or simply die of disease and malnutrition?

 

There are some who abuse the system we have but there are many more who survive thanks to that system.

 

Should we have stopped football in the 80's because of a few hooligans?

[Molly]

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's your alternative suggestion?

[Lionator]

You're confused. Politics isn't about winning, its about belief in how society should be. 

 

Blair and many others have won because too many people don't understand politics and political effect and vote on celebrityism. Most voters are mindless sheep led through life by the media and their celebrity puppets.

 

I like Matt and he thinks his politics through and has a belief system, I like Alf he thinks politics through and has a belief system. They are not the same belief systems and neither of them are "wrong". All 3 parties fighting over the same political territory is a joke, we've seen that all 3 major parties (before the last election) were basically clones and the voting came down to whether a person in the party fell over leaving a stage or whether someone else got a meaningless soundbyte on the air at the right time or whether someone else managed to falsely blacken someones name at the right time.

 

England has lost the meaning of politics. Better to have a left, centre and right party arguing from different standpoints even if the same "centre" party wins every time than the meaningless mush of celebrity similar parties.

 

Just you wait til Boris gets the Tory leadership. 

[Molly]

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

 

 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?

 

How do you do that?

 

Concentration camps?

[Webbo]

How do you do that?

 

Concentration camps?

Obviously not. You make it so that working is a much better prospect than living on benefits.

[Strokes]

Should we have stopped football in the 80's because of a few hooligans?

Nobody Is talking about stopping the benefit system, so that analogy is wrong.

I think if we lavish on those that don't work we send out the wrong message, it should be tough, it should be hard. Otherwise why bother working? I think if we need to find a place for our guilt of the welfare class, it should go towards education and training because buying them off will just increase the problem.

[Molly]

Just you wait til Boris gets the Tory leadership. 

 

And it's likely to happen because the UK has gone celebrity mad.

 

I see great ideas from all parties but ideas are secondary, at best, in the voters minds.

 

The populace will vote for what isn't in their best interest because they are deceived and not capable of understanding the cause and consequence of actions, nor the fundamental basis of how a country works or moreso how society functions.

[Webbo]

And it's likely to happen because the UK has gone celebrity mad.

 

I see great ideas from all parties but ideas are secondary, at best, in the voters minds.

 

The populace will vote for what isn't in their best interest because they are deceived and not capable of understanding the cause and consequence of actions, nor the fundamental basis of how a country works or moreso how society functions.

Presumably you're too clever to be deceived like the rest of us?

[Molly]

Obviously not. You make it so that working is a much better prospect than living on benefits.

 

Easy to say, but can you give some detail.

 

It's a long time since we had full employment in the UK.

 

In a simplistic way you are alluding to either increasing the working wage - which obviously is never going to happen or decreasing benefits. Do you fully understand the consequences of reducing benefits to a sufficient level to "force people to work"? Surely that would mean a large increase in homeless families, disease, health problems, crime, violence etc...

 

And then of course there will still be people who can't or won't work. How do you force them? Concentration camps? kill them?

 

I understand the frustration middle and lower middle and working class families feel - they are being given the short straw. They are abused both by some of the rich and some of the unemployed. The media has whipped this storm to a frenzy over accentuating the problem so as to hide the real problems in society. I would love to see the benefit abuses wiped out and benefits reduced in some (many) cases (I'd also like to see the far worse abuses by the wealthy wiped out) but I'm not willing to accept that at the cost of so many honest people's lives being ruined. My morale code cannot accept that.

 

So tell me, how would you do it?

[Buce]

Presumably you're too clever to be deceived like the rest of us?

Speak for yourself, Webbo.

[Molly]

Nobody Is talking about stopping the benefit system, so that analogy is wrong.

I think if we lavish on those that don't work we send out the wrong message, it should be tough, it should be hard. Otherwise why bother working? I think if we need to find a place for our guilt of the welfare class, it should go towards education and training because buying them off will just increase the problem.

 

And I'm sure you'd also like the far greater abuse by the wealthy to be sorted out too, but I don't see you fighting for that. 

 

No fit able bodied man or woman of working age should not be working - Can we agree on that?

 

That includes the rich as well as the poor.

 

Should a man live of the back of other people's work as the whites did on their black slaves? Of course you'll probably not see it like that, perhaps you'll argue it's because of higher intelligence or that great granddaddy did the work so the following generations can be exempt and live the life of lazy benfit claimers (except so much better).

 

Do you think a person's genetic makeup - whether that be intelligence, physique, looks or skin colour should mean that some are doomed to miserable poor lives whilst others can make merry? And we shouldn't intervene.

 

Damn, I hope your kids (or your kids kids) are healthy, intelligent and hard working as they grow up.

[Webbo]

Easy to say, but can you give some detail.

 

It's a long time since we had full employment in the UK.

 

In a simplistic way you are alluding to either increasing the working wage - which obviously is never going to happen or decreasing benefits. Do you fully understand the consequences of reducing benefits to a sufficient level to "force people to work"? Surely that would mean a large increase in homeless families, disease, health problems, crime, violence etc...

 

And then of course there will still be people who can't or won't work. How do you force them? Concentration camps? kill them?

 

I understand the frustration middle and lower middle and working class families feel - they are being given the short straw. They are abused both by some of the rich and some of the unemployed. The media has whipped this storm to a frenzy over accentuating the problem so as to hide the real problems in society. I would love to see the benefit abuses wiped out and benefits reduced in some (many) cases (I'd also like to see the far worse abuses by the wealthy wiped out) but I'm not willing to accept that at the cost of so many honest people's lives being ruined. My morale code cannot accept that.

 

So tell me, how would you do it?

Can you spare us all the hyperbole? Nobody is talking about putting people in concentration camps or bumping off the poor. You're just making yourself appear stupid.

 

In a simplistic way you are alluding to either increasing the working wage - which obviously is never going to happen or decreasing benefits. Do you fully understand the consequences of reducing benefits to a sufficient level to "force people to work"? Surely that would mean a large increase in homeless families, disease, health problems, crime, violence etc...

 

We were told all that 5 years ago and it hasn't happened.

 

I understand the frustration middle and lower middle and working class families feel - they are being given the short straw. They are abused both by some of the rich and some of the unemployed. 

 

I'm not abused by either.

[Molly]

Presumably you're too clever to be deceived like the rest of us?

 

What sort of answer to the question is that?

 

I want to know how you are going to force the unemployed to work?

 

and as a follow up I want to know if a full hour's work by one man is equivalent to a full hour's work by another - in your economic theory.

[Molly]

Can you spare us all the hyperbole? Nobody is talking about putting people in concentration camps or bumping off the poor. You're just making yourself appear stupid.

 

We were told all that 5 years ago and it hasn't happened.

 

I'm not abused by either.

 

No, you're not. You're not making any suggestions, you're just saying "force the unemployed to work". The only way I can see that is by concentration camp and I keep asking you for your alternative. So far you're just ducking and diving  and making yourself look stupid.

 

5 years ago? what are you talking about? You're being a bit simple. Policies take generations to work through. You don't pay of the debt in 5 years, you don't get everyone working in 5 years etc...

 

You are abused you just don't realise it. You're too happy to read the mail and complain about benfit cheats and immigrants.

and with that 

 

A Good night to all.

 

I need my Inler and aranguiz fix.

[Webbo]

What sort of answer to the question is that?

 

I want to know how you are going to force the unemployed to work?

 

and as a follow up I want to know if a full hour's work by one man is equivalent to a full hour's work by another - in your economic theory.

How can you be so conceited to think that the only reason somebody would disagree with you is if they've been deceived? Is it possible that other people are in the right and you're the thick one?

 

As for your follow up question, obviously not. Danny Drinkwater earns vastly more than I do per hour. He, with the correct training, could do my job, whereas I will never be capable of doing his. I accept that and it doesn't bother me.

[Webbo]

 

 

You are abused you just don't realise it. You're too happy to read the mail and complain about benfit cheats and immigrants.

 

Could you show me where I've complained about immigrants and benefit cheats?

[Molly]

How can you be so conceited to think that the only reason somebody would disagree with you is if they've been deceived? Is it possible that other people are in the right and you're the thick one?

 

As for your follow up question, obviously not. Danny Drinkwater earns vastly more than I do per hour. He, with the correct training, could do my job, whereas I will never be capable of doing his. I accept that and it doesn't bother me.

 

So still evading the question.

 

I don't mind you calling me conceited and thick. That may be true.

 

Just answer the question.

 

How are YOU going to force people to work?

Could you show me where I've complained about immigrants and benefit cheats?

 

Answer the question.

[Webbo]

So still evading the question.

 

I don't mind you calling me conceited and thick. That may be true.

 

Just answer the question.

 

How are YOU going to force people to work?

 

Answer the question.

 

Obviously not. You make it so that working is a much better prospect than living on benefits.

[Frank to be]

People only complain about benefits because other people are getting more than they are. If we had the citizens income everyone would get the same and everyone would be happy. If people saw past all the false 'affordability' problems an economy like that which the greens propose would be much better for all.