IDS not attending debate on 'bedroom tax' in Parliment

[Zingari]

I really must let my 13 year old granddaughter hack my account more often. 

[Finnegan]

[hackneyfox]

 

 

The ruling classes in the UK gave us, and will give us  nothing without a fight and neither will any rulers in the world.  , 

This generation gradually seems to be getting apathetic and stupid enough  to let them take it away again piece by piece.

 

Sadly so true

[Guest MattP]

 

I'm not really too sure of the relevance of that but; 

The only reason we have government better than that in Manilla and many other countries  is because the common people have been continually prepared to take action against them through the worker's unions and other collective goal civil unrest.

 

If we had laid back and taken it like the developing industrial nations are at the moment we would still be treated with equal contempt.

As a generation living in the UK in the present  we are very lucky and should be extremely grateful for the work and bravery of out ancestors who were prepared to stand up to the injustice that's now being forced onto lesser developed nations .

 

The ruling classes in the UK gave us, and will give us  nothing without a fight and neither will any rulers in the world.  , 

This generation gradually seems to be getting apathetic and stupid enough  to let them take it away again piece by piece.

 

 

Good post Zinger.

 

I agree with most of what you have put, not near google atm but didn't Attlee introduce the welfare state though,? I realise workers rights etc all had to be fought for but I didnt realise that was the case with dole money. I often think he would turn in his grave if he could see what his idea became under people like Gordon Brown when he started to use it to buy votes.

 

No idea why I mentioned Manilla, probably as I had the news on all day.

[Guest MattP]

.

[Oasisedup]

 

I'm not really too sure of the relevance of that but; 

The only reason we have government better than that in Manilla and many other countries  is because the common people have been continually prepared to take action against them through the worker's unions and other collective goal civil unrest.

 

If we had laid back and taken it like the developing industrial nations are at the moment we would still be treated with equal contempt.

As a generation living in the UK in the present  we are very lucky and should be extremely grateful for the work and bravery of out ancestors who were prepared to stand up to the injustice that's now being forced onto lesser developed nations .

 

The ruling classes in the UK gave us, and will give us  nothing without a fight and neither will any rulers in the world.  , 

This generation gradually seems to be getting apathetic and stupid enough  to let them take it away again piece by piece.

 

 

Actually, there are people "taking action" against the Government in Manila.

 

The "common people" are generally in favour of the Filipino Government, but any attempt at progress (i.e. building infrastructure, introducing a functioning democracy, exploiting the abundant natural resources of that part of the World) is hamstrung by Marxist rebels on the one hand and Islamist terrorists on the other.  Is that the kind of "taking action" you have in mind?

 

In 2011, plenty of people in the Middle East "took action" against the cronyism and elitism of their Governments. It didn't turn out so well.  

 

Also, where in the history of England have the "common people" (which you seem to equate with the unions) taken successful, long-lasting action against the Government? You could argue that France did, where the "common people" did rise up, did chop off the King's head, and did enter into a long, painful, unsuccessful war with the rest of Europe. I'm glad we didn't.

 

We have never resorted to a "revolution" or anything like that. We had the Civil War, fought by a group of nobles against the monarch, we had the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which brought about the idea of the Parliamentary Democracy with the "Queen-in-Parliament". And we have progressed ever since, pragmatically, not revolutionary.

 

That (along with the free market embedding here first, i.e. the Industrial Revolution) is why our Government is more stable and our country more prosperous than that of the developing democracies.

[Zingari]

Actually, there are people "taking action" against the Government in Manila.

 

The "common people" are generally in favour of the Filipino Government, but any attempt at progress (i.e. building infrastructure, introducing a functioning democracy, exploiting the abundant natural resources of that part of the World) is hamstrung by Marxist rebels on the one hand and Islamist terrorists on the other.  Is that the kind of "taking action" you have in mind?

 

In 2011, plenty of people in the Middle East "took action" against the cronyism and elitism of their Governments. It didn't turn out so well.  

 

Also, where in the history of England have the "common people" (which you seem to equate with the unions) taken successful, long-lasting action against the Government? You could argue that France did, where the "common people" did rise up, did chop off the King's head, and did enter into a long, painful, unsuccessful war with the rest of Europe. I'm glad we didn't.

 

We have never resorted to a "revolution" or anything like that. We had the Civil War, fought by a group of nobles against the monarch, we had the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which brought about the idea of the Parliamentary Democracy with the "Queen-in-Parliament". And we have progressed ever since, pragmatically, not revolutionary.

 

That (along with the free market embedding here first, i.e. the Industrial Revolution) is why our Government is more stable and our country more prosperous than that of the developing democracies.

Hello and welcome 

 

This would be an excellent reply if I believed that all these so called  Islamic and Marxist terrorists were actually what they were purported to be. 

Well I don't believe it for one moment. I believe this terrorism is all phoney and orchestrated and funded by  various economic hit men of the global elite to ensure a continuing and very convenient "war on terror".

Nothing keeps a population down and controlled  better than fear. The population always surrenders rights for "protection"  

 

Do a little research and try to work out for yourself who actually funds all these terror groups . They can't live on fresh air alone and presumably they aren't in paid employment, so how exactly are  these vastly expensive terrorist campaigns and armies funded .Presumably they are not funded  by the government themselves.These are quite sophisticated  armies , not just ragbag groups of scoundrels and bandits.( although the television images often portray them as such)  

The weapons themselves alone are enormously expensive , don't you agree ?

Do they have whip rounds in local bars ? rummage sales? Rich local businessmen donating  ? 

Where ?Who?

  

Just think about it yourself for a little while  . Who would fund them,  and more 

importantly , why ?

 

I don't have the answers for sure , but just accepting these terrorist groups appear from nowhere armed only with their deep seated ideological ideals and   without enormous financial backing is quite simply unbelievable.

 

I feel like I've strayed a little too much off the subject and into global NWO conspiracy though so i'll leave it at that for now   

[indierich06]

Good for you if you don't like it, that's what I like to hear, that's the attitude and motivation you need to get off it, some people actually are happy on it and I dread to think what sort of mindset they are in, it should be seen as something undesireable, it should never been seenas a lifestyle choice, it should be there to help people when they can't find work.

 

Can't even imagine what kind of mindset you'd have to enjoy being on benefits, I did it for about 6 months after I left uni and couldn't get a job in journalism and it was the most bleak and depressing time of my life, I ended up working in a pub (and eventually managing it for a while) for about two and a half years before I managed to get my break and moved down to London for a decent job. I didn't really want to work in the pub, but any job and earning your own money is preferable to relying on the handouts which amount to an absolute pittance which you get from the government - **** that.

[Oasisedup]

 

Hello and welcome 

 

This would be an excellent reply if I believed that all these so called  Islamic and Marxist terrorists were actually what they were purported to be. 

Well I don't believe it for one moment. I believe this terrorism is all phoney and orchestrated and funded by  various economic hit men of the global elite to ensure a continuing and very convenient "war on terror".

Nothing keeps a population down and controlled  better than fear. The population always surrenders rights for "protection"  

 

Do a little research and try to work out for yourself who actually funds all these terror groups . They can't live on fresh air alone and presumably they aren't in paid employment, so how exactly are  these vastly expensive terrorist campaigns and armies funded .Presumably they are not funded  by the government themselves.These are quite sophisticated  armies , not just ragbag groups of scoundrels and bandits.( although the television images often portray them as such)  

The weapons themselves alone are enormously expensive , don't you agree ?

Do they have whip rounds in local bars ? rummage sales? Rich local businessmen donating  ? 

Where ?Who?

  

Just think about it yourself for a little while  . Who would fund them,  and more 

importantly , why ?

 

I don't have the answers for sure , but just accepting these terrorist groups appear from nowhere armed only with their deep seated ideological ideals and   without enormous financial backing is quite simply unbelievable.

 

I feel like I've strayed a little too much off the subject and into global NWO conspiracy though so i'll leave it at that for now   

 

 

Hello fella,

 

Long-time observer, new-time poster.

 

I didn't realise you were a David Icke-esque conspiracy theorist. I am afraid my views are too far removed from you to have a proper chinwag about it all. You have some interesting views, though.

 

I can't comment specifically on South-East Asian Islamists, but many of "these terrorist groups" get their funds from all kinds of avenues. Money laundering and organised crime, to name two. Governments (particularly Iran, until the last couple of months) and drug smuggling (Afghani poppy fields), to name more.

 

Back to the topic - I agree with other posters that a life on benefits is a fairly unpleasant existence, and the vast majority don't do it out of choice. The minority who do are pilloried because of the laziness they represent, rather than the economic cost they inflict on the country.

 

If you really want to change the system for the better - Cameron etc. should look at the amount of tax-payers' money we give pensioners, and stop being so afraid of the grey lobby.

[Alf Bentley]

 

If we had laid back and taken it like the developing industrial nations are at the moment we would still be treated with equal contempt.

As a generation living in the UK in the present  we are very lucky and should be extremely grateful for the work and bravery of out ancestors who were prepared to stand up to the injustice that's now being forced onto lesser developed nations .

 

The ruling classes in the UK gave us, and will give us  nothing without a fight and neither will any rulers in the world.  , 

This generation gradually seems to be getting apathetic and stupid enough  to let them take it away again piece by piece.

 

 

I agree with most of what you have put, not near google atm but didn't Attlee introduce the welfare state though,? I realise workers rights etc all had to be fought for but I didnt realise that was the case with dole money. I often think he would turn in his grave if he could see what his idea became under people like Gordon Brown when he started to use it to buy votes.

 

I'm sure that the likes of Attlee & Beveridge would indeed turn in their graves at the welfare state funding long-term structural unemployment (people who can't get work) and cultural unemployment (the minority who choose to live on benefits). Likewise, I'm sure that generations of decent "one nation" Tories would be appalled at a Tory Govt ordering thousands of people, mainly genuinely unemployed or disabled, to move to non-existent 1-bedroom flats and then punishing them for not moving to those non-existent flats....all while giving tax cuts for billionnaires to stuff in their off-shore bank accounts and not taking serious action to claw back the much greater sums lost through tax avoidance by the super-rich and corporations.

 

Also, where in the history of England have the "common people" (which you seem to equate with the unions) taken successful, long-lasting action against the Government? You could argue that France did, where the "common people" did rise up, did chop off the King's head, and did enter into a long, painful, unsuccessful war with the rest of Europe. I'm glad we didn't.

 

We have never resorted to a "revolution" or anything like that. We had the Civil War, fought by a group of nobles against the monarch, we had the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which brought about the idea of the Parliamentary Democracy with the "Queen-in-Parliament". And we have progressed ever since, pragmatically, not revolutionary.

 

That (along with the free market embedding here first, i.e. the Industrial Revolution) is why our Government is more stable and our country more prosperous than that of the developing democracies.

 

This is what is known as a "straw man argument": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Zingari's argument (top), surely, is that the English ruling classes only gave concessions to the common people because they fought for them. He doesn't advocate revolution in his post or claim that it happened, so your response that we have "never resorted to a 'revolution' ", while accurate, is completely irrelevant.

 

Unless, of course, you believe that the Great Reform Acts and social reforms of the 19th century would have been introduced by Tory/Whig governments without the campaigns of the Radicals, Chartists etc. If so, why did those campaigns happen and why were they so bitterly opposed by the ruling classes? Likewise, why did the Suffragettes bother campaigning, if votes for women would, presumably, have been introduced through the goodwill of male parliamentarians? Why did the working class bother to set up trade unions and the Labour Party if, for example, the NHS would have been introduced anyway? In reality, Churchill opposed the establishment of the NHS.

 

More recently, the extra-parliamentary campaign against the poll tax played a critical role in the overthrow of Mrs. Thatcher. 

Poll tax rioters didn't burst into No.10 and guillotine Mrs. T, but the ruling classes acted "pragmatically" (you are right there) to give concessions to the campaigns of people struggling to protect/obtain rights. This has happened throughout British history.

[Oasisedup]

 

This is what is known as a "straw man argument": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Zingari's argument (top), surely, is that the English ruling classes only gave concessions to the common people because they fought for them. He doesn't advocate revolution in his post or claim that it happened, so your response that we have "never resorted to a 'revolution' ", while accurate, is completely irrelevant.

 

Unless, of course, you believe that the Great Reform Acts and social reforms of the 19th century would have been introduced by Tory/Whig governments without the campaigns of the Radicals, Chartists etc. If so, why did those campaigns happen and why were they so bitterly opposed by the ruling classes? Likewise, why did the Suffragettes bother campaigning, if votes for women would, presumably, have been introduced through the goodwill of male parliamentarians? Why did the working class bother to set up trade unions and the Labour Party if, for example, the NHS would have been introduced anyway? In reality, Churchill opposed the establishment of the NHS.

 

More recently, the extra-parliamentary campaign against the poll tax played a critical role in the overthrow of Mrs. Thatcher. 

Poll tax rioters didn't burst into No.10 and guillotine Mrs. T, but the ruling classes acted "pragmatically" (you are right there) to give concessions to the campaigns of people struggling to protect/obtain rights. This has happened throughout British history.

I think, Alf, that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me.

 

Where do I state that the suffragettes should not have campaigned for women's rights or that the NHS would have "happened anyway"? That is the ultimate example of the "straw man". I was simply arguing that the idea that the reason that we are more prosperous than developing countries  "is because the common people have been continually prepared to take action against them through the worker's unions and other collective goal civil unrest [sic]" is utter, utter nonsense. To state the reason we are a prosperous country is because of the worker's unions and civil unrest is laughable. 

 

Nonetheless, despite setting up the ultimate straw man you fail to knock him down.

 

To equate the "trade unions" with the creation of the NHS is an appalling misconflation, and one even most Labourites would caution against. Bevan was, in his early days, a unionist, but was he when he became Minister of Health and a mainstream politician? Was Attlee ever in his life? I thought Attlee was a lawyer by trade?

 

You state that Churchill opposed the establishment of the NHS, as if he was this mad dog lone voice of the right, do you know that the BMA (i.e. the British Medical Association) also opposed the founding of the NHS, in its original form? 

 

Anyway, this is more than a bit off topic.

 

The reasons why we are more prosperous than other countries are manifold. As I said above, the gradual evolution of our political system over time is crucial to this success. A further reason is the Industrial Revolution and our development of capital markets and joint stock companies during the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

If you were examining the problems that the Philippines have to struggle with (along with other emerging markets), and you were to say, with a straight face and in all seriousness, that the root cause of their problems was that the people of the Philippines have "laid back and taken it" and pointed to the absence of "worker's unions and...civil unrest", you would be laughed out the room. Rightly so.

 

They face the serious problems of mass unemployment, multiple languages and cultures trying to form a single whole, a cronyist, elitist ruling class, a democratic system which is struggling against all the odds to take root in the face of Marxist terrorism and Islamist fundamentalism and you are trying to say it's because they haven't got a Labour Party or "civil unrest"? Nonsense. Complete, unalloyed nonsense.

 

They have more than enough civil unrest.

[ADK]

I think there is perhaps a point to be made about our countries's and the Philippines's situations being different.

 

At the end of the day there is a quite a difference between both countries but you can't rubbish the role of trade unions and civil unrest in the UK by looking at a developing nation.

[Alf Bentley]

I think, Alf, that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me.

 

Where do I state that the suffragettes should not have campaigned for women's rights or that the NHS would have "happened anyway"? That is the ultimate example of the "straw man". I was simply arguing that the idea that the reason that we are more prosperous than developing countries  "is because the common people have been continually prepared to take action against them through the worker's unions and other collective goal civil unrest [sic]" is utter, utter nonsense. To state the reason we are a prosperous country is because of the worker's unions and civil unrest is laughable. 

 

Nonetheless, despite setting up the ultimate straw man you fail to knock him down.

 

To equate the "trade unions" with the creation of the NHS is an appalling misconflation, and one even most Labourites would caution against. Bevan was, in his early days, a unionist, but was he when he became Minister of Health and a mainstream politician? Was Attlee ever in his life? I thought Attlee was a lawyer by trade?

 

You state that Churchill opposed the establishment of the NHS, as if he was this mad dog lone voice of the right, do you know that the BMA (i.e. the British Medical Association) also opposed the founding of the NHS, in its original form? 

 

Anyway, this is more than a bit off topic.

 

The reasons why we are more prosperous than other countries are manifold. As I said above, the gradual evolution of our political system over time is crucial to this success. A further reason is the Industrial Revolution and our development of capital markets and joint stock companies during the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

If you were examining the problems that the Philippines have to struggle with (along with other emerging markets), and you were to say, with a straight face and in all seriousness, that the root cause of their problems was that the people of the Philippines have "laid back and taken it" and pointed to the absence of "worker's unions and...civil unrest", you would be laughed out the room. Rightly so.

 

They face the serious problems of mass unemployment, multiple languages and cultures trying to form a single whole, a cronyist, elitist ruling class, a democratic system which is struggling against all the odds to take root in the face of Marxist terrorism and Islamist fundamentalism and you are trying to say it's because they haven't got a Labour Party or "civil unrest"? Nonsense. Complete, unalloyed nonsense.

 

They have more than enough civil unrest.

 

Just finished work and got to leave for the weekend in 10 minutes, but quickly....

- I didn't comment on Philippines at all because I know nothing about it

- You didn't comment on the suffragettes, but you did deny the role of the "common people" in bringing social change in Britain: "Also, where in the history of England have the "common people" (which you seem to equate with the unions) taken successful, long-lasting action against the Government?"

- I agree that our history has mainly progressed through pragmatism - but a pragmatic response to the campaigns of the "common people" in various forms

- I didn't say that the TUs set up the NHS; I said that they set up the Labour Party, which later set up the NHS (on recommendations from Beveridge, a Liberal, and in the face of opposition from the Tories and, yes, the BMA (Bevan "stuffed their mouths with gold" etc.)

....Sorry for the ad hoc response, but I gotta go!