nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ViolentPanda said:
Aye, they see the disabled as an untapped pool of labour.
Brown to continue with radical welfare reform, privatisations
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
Aye, they see the disabled as an untapped pool of labour.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
That's right - and the actual terms and parameters of the debate will be predicided beforehand as well. Sort of like; "Here's the issue of the day. You can choose from the following list of opinions to have on the matter."nino_savatte said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
poster342002 said:
Do you remember "The Big Conversation"? Some conversation, it was more like the sound of one hand clapping.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
"Four Legs Good! Two Legs Bad!" springs to mind.nino_savatte said:
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
And I know 2 women who've just finished the one year full time PGCE course and they are single mothers with one child each. Considierable sacrifices all round, but now the future is far more interesting for both families.Luther Blissett said:
You want to do stuff you can, you want to put up barriers to prevent yourself doing stuff you can do that as well.
They, and I, would say bus journey's don't matter a single fuck.
such a london-centric post
WOMAN: "Oh there you go, bringing class into it again."
For me there are a couple of aspects I would like to bring up.
1) The bad press the wealthy are getting on tax avoidance is going to force Parliament's hand if a poll-tax style riot doesn't get there first.
Too optimistic Parliament is corrupt and it is the millionaries that are bank rolling this sham of democracy , while i would argue that the radicals who would stage such a demo/riot no longer really connect to wider society
2) I think paying tax should be seen as a civic duty and the wealthy who avoid paying taxes should be named and shamed for doing so.
good idea but then they donate to the big parties don't they so we will not see this one and the media will soon go back to poor bashing or teen gang murders
3) Inequalities of wealth are not healthy for society. If people see the unfairness - which they will inevitably do, and as climate change makes things harder, they will want something done about it. Some will turn to crime. Others through the political process. The former will require more oppressive policing. The latter a change of policy. However, for that to happen, not dealing with the super-rich has to be seen to be a vote-loser.
Personally i think this ignores the totalitarian tendancies which seem indemic within middle britain especially when one considers the the rise of britain as a police state and its techonological infrastructure which grows dailey
4) I don't think it is wrong to target those who are claiming benefits fraudulently. If they are claiming something that they are not entitled to then I as a tax payer have a problem with that because such people are getting hold of money that could be better spent in other areas.
such a small minority and surely the funds spent on catching them would be better spent on getting tax from tax avoiding millionaries
5) Better treatments for conditions such as depression (for which I've suffered from for over a decade) need to be made much more available. It's not fun to be depressed (Well obviously) and both the individual and society are losing out when people withdraw from it. By that I don't mean "get a job and pay taxes", it is the more simple things like meeting up with friends for a kickabout in the park or going along to a summer street festival.
i'll drink to that
For me there are a couple of aspects I would like to bring up.
1) The bad press the wealthy are getting on tax avoidance is going to force Parliament's hand if a poll-tax style riot doesn't get there first.
Too optimistic Parliament is corrupt and it is the millionaries that are bank rolling this sham of democracy , while i would argue that the radicals who would stage such a demo/riot no longer really connect to wider society
2) I think paying tax should be seen as a civic duty and the wealthy who avoid paying taxes should be named and shamed for doing so.
good idea but then they donate to the big parties don't they so we will not see this one and the media will soon go back to poor bashing or teen gang murders
3) Inequalities of wealth are not healthy for society. If people see the unfairness - which they will inevitably do, and as climate change makes things harder, they will want something done about it. Some will turn to crime. Others through the political process. The former will require more oppressive policing. The latter a change of policy. However, for that to happen, not dealing with the super-rich has to be seen to be a vote-loser.
Personally i think this ignores the totalitarian tendancies which seem indemic within middle britain especially when one considers the the rise of britain as a police state and its techonological infrastructure which grows dailey
4) I don't think it is wrong to target those who are claiming benefits fraudulently. If they are claiming something that they are not entitled to then I as a tax payer have a problem with that because such people are getting hold of money that could be better spent in other areas.
such a small minority and surely the funds spent on catching them would be better spent on getting tax from tax avoiding millionaries
5) Better treatments for conditions such as depression (for which I've suffered from for over a decade) need to be made much more available. It's not fun to be depressed (Well obviously) and both the individual and society are losing out when people withdraw from it. By that I don't mean "get a job and pay taxes", it is the more simple things like meeting up with friends for a kickabout in the park or going along to a summer street festival.
i'll drink to that
Fruitloop said:Frmo a poster called 'London Calling' too. Whod have thought it!
or who would not have
meanwhile inequality reaches crisis levels, oh where is the left when you need them?
Polly Toynbee in todays GCIF
'Almost daily, reports expose the way societies are being wrenched apart as a stratospheric elite stymies social mobility. The OECD, hardly a leftist outfit, notes that wage inequality is rising steeply in 18 of 20 developed nations it monitors. The very idea of "per capita GDP" has become meaningless when rewards are so dispersed. The UK is one of the most unequal, though in the past decade Labour has done better compared with most countries, so our gap widened by only a fraction. That's been done by the biggest yet redistribution to low-income families, though the richest 0.1% are vanishing off the graph. (At a recent seminar, a lecturer said that to represent top wealth faithfully, a bar chart would stretch out of the building.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111401,00.html
Polly Toynbee in todays GCIF
'Almost daily, reports expose the way societies are being wrenched apart as a stratospheric elite stymies social mobility. The OECD, hardly a leftist outfit, notes that wage inequality is rising steeply in 18 of 20 developed nations it monitors. The very idea of "per capita GDP" has become meaningless when rewards are so dispersed. The UK is one of the most unequal, though in the past decade Labour has done better compared with most countries, so our gap widened by only a fraction. That's been done by the biggest yet redistribution to low-income families, though the richest 0.1% are vanishing off the graph. (At a recent seminar, a lecturer said that to represent top wealth faithfully, a bar chart would stretch out of the building.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111401,00.html
I am suprised anyone is suprised but still you live and learn i suppose..
treelover said:
NL Apologist toynbee to browns rescue
But is tony blair a catholic 
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
London_Calling said:
You make it all sound so simple and so obvious, so non-complex.
Totally unlike reality, in other words.
there are still a lot of delusional LP members around
'Posted by Cllr. Pat Merrick (Hapsford, Cheshire)
on 25 June 2007, 11:29:07 AM
I was there in Manchester yesterday, and although Hilary Benn was my first choice, I got very excited when it looked like Jon was going to win and think that the left of our Party can afford to come out of the closet and rebuid our Party on the socialist principles that made most of us join in the first place.
Harriet was my second choice and, as a woman, I am delighted that she won, but now she must earn the confidence that Jon gave her by saying that she would be his choice if he lost, his endorcement convinced me to place her where I did.
It is up to us now to work hard for the change that we hope they will be and make us all proud to be Labour again.
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=713#comments
'Posted by Cllr. Pat Merrick (Hapsford, Cheshire)
on 25 June 2007, 11:29:07 AM
I was there in Manchester yesterday, and although Hilary Benn was my first choice, I got very excited when it looked like Jon was going to win and think that the left of our Party can afford to come out of the closet and rebuid our Party on the socialist principles that made most of us join in the first place.
Harriet was my second choice and, as a woman, I am delighted that she won, but now she must earn the confidence that Jon gave her by saying that she would be his choice if he lost, his endorcement convinced me to place her where I did.
It is up to us now to work hard for the change that we hope they will be and make us all proud to be Labour again.
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=713#comments
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
ViolentPanda said:
Oh but i think you do matter VP - you matter as units of economic currency effectively. You matter because to achieve the mythical 80% employment rate, there needs to be more disabled people working and more importantly, you matter because in achieving that rate, there are myriad opportunities to divert funds (eg taxes and NI) from the public sector into predominantly private sector companies who stand to make big bucks from 'helping' you move closer to work.
The fact that the vast majority of employers couldn't give a monkeys and will inevitably go for the low-cost low-risk flexible work-force option isn't really here or there in the greater scheme of things.
Excepting for the fact that benefit entitlement conditions will be ramped up, attendance at interviews will be compulsory at risk of financial sanction from already inadequate benefits, engagement with some low-paid personal advisor (her/him self working at threat of disciplinary for underperformance) working to unrealistic targets and unachievable expectations will become mandatory, until such time as any short-term part-time agency job does indeed look like the best option. Until that finishes and you're back to the benefit claim hamster wheel.
Can you tell i've had a day of it.....
heartof gold
New Member
i would like to see ppl who abuse their benefits have them cut. I know a woman who smokes 20 a day while on income support how on earth does she afford it the money isnt meant for that and it annoys me.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
heartof gold said:
Maybe she buys knock-off fags?
heartof gold
New Member
cant have an opinion then. I would love to now how ppl afford to smoke when they cost a fiver a packet thats all and they are on benefit, what goes by the by in order for their cigs?
Guess it all depends what you priorities are?
Guess it all depends what you priorities are?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Even if that were true - how on earth could you be bothered to be bothered about it, given the vastly higher wastes of taxpayers money (and tax-avoidance by the super-rich) elsewhere?heartof gold said:
heartof gold
New Member
i think thats a little different, we are talking about ppl who dont work so are given benefit to pay their food and bills etc and they squander it on fags how to they afford it please tell. IS THEIR RATE OF BENEFIT TO HIGH THEN PLEASE TELL. if you can afford a fiver a day on cigs then maybe you get to much money. what happens to the money for the bills and food then for them and kids???
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Sorry, I should have stipulated that while we matter as economic units, we don't matter as people.Paulie Tandoori said:
Excepting for the fact that benefit entitlement conditions will be ramped up, attendance at interviews will be compulsory at risk of financial sanction from already inadequate benefits, engagement with some low-paid personal advisor (her/him self working at threat of disciplinary for underperformance) working to unrealistic targets and unachievable expectations will become mandatory, until such time as any short-term part-time agency job does indeed look like the best option. Until that finishes and you're back to the benefit claim hamster wheel.
Can you tell i've had a day of it.....
I kinda got an inkling you might have.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
heartof gold said:
You seem to be basing your self-righteous indignation on a belief that everyone pays "a fiver a packet" for their cigarettes.
Not on the estate I live, on and not on many others I know, either. There's always someone selling knock-offs or duty-frees for half of that, sometimes less depending on brand.
I also know loads of folk, including women, who smoke rollies because it works out much cheaper.
Is that plain enough, or would you prefer more spoon-feeding?
heartof gold
New Member
why self righteous just cos i ask a question, do you smoke on benefits by any chance? You still havent answered question is the benefit rate to high then if ppl can afford to smoke (ordinary or roll ups) smoking isnt cheap nor is drinking thats a fact? do the kids go without something so parents can get their fix?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
But you matter to me VP, you matter to me, if that makes you feel a bit betterViolentPanda said:Sorry, I should have stipulated that while we matter as economic units, we don't matter as people.
I even started a thread about it....now, about that cheap baccie you were talking aboutViolentPanda said:I kinda got an inkling you might have.
Benefit rates too high? Let's see now, JSA for someone over 25 pays the princely sum of £59.15 p/w, whilst someone on long term incapacity benefit should be getting £81.35 p/w - so you're facing all of the costs associated with long term ill health and expected to pay for food, bills, clothes, travel, etc etc from about £320 per month.
Blimey, that's loads, how dare they spend it on items of their own choosing, whatever next, let's give them all food vouchers like those nasty asylum-seekers....
(this is irony, btw, before anyone starts flaming me for the above).Similar threads
