james purnell hate thread

[ViolentPanda]

he's still a hateful shit isn't he? i was saddened to see his face again over the past week.

Typical example of scum rising. He doesn't have a socialist bone in his body, so he fits well with the rest of the careerist cretins.
On a related note, I'd love to hold a seance for Ralph Miliband and see how he feels about his two sell-out sons.

 

[killer b]

do you think derek acorah might be available?

 

[_angel_]

Yuck. Just yuck. How can he pretend to be left wing, I mean how thick does he think we all are.

If he hadn't stolen tory welfare policy, the real tories now wouldn't be in a position to basically totally wreck social security completely, like they will do.

 

[trevhagl]

Yuck. Just yuck. How can he pretend to be left wing, I mean how thick does he think we all are.

If he hadn't stolen tory welfare policy, the real tories now wouldn't be in a position to basically totally wreck social security completely, like they will do.

looks like Labour are gonna blow their big chance of getting proper Labour supporters back in the party.

 

[treelover]

''His remarks represent the clearest admission yet by a former cabinet minister that Labour found itself on the wrong side of the immigration debate, and lost contact with a section of the semi-skilled working class. "We had people saying 'we work hard, and pay our taxes, but there are people who live near us, and are not working, and get more, where is the fairness in that

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ion-leadership

Yup this is from Ed Balls, left wing my arse!

 

[Combustible]

Yup this is from Ed Balls, left wing my arse!

To be fair, in the context of the article it appears he is arguing more that welfare provisions did not stretch far enough up the income scale which I think has something to it. If you restrict benefits/redistributive measures to those at the very bottom you do not build broad base of support for them then you are susceptible to the sort of argument that he quotes. Obviously I wouldn't put it past him to implement more draconian welfare measures.

This unease takes Balls to what he regards as one of the most important Labour goals – not implemented entirely with success – which is being abandoned by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. That is the ambition of achieving "progressive universalism" in which the welfare state helps society from the sick, to the less well-off, to the struggling middle classes.

Balls, who played a key role in devising tax credits which top up the pay of the less well-off rather than handing out benefit cheques, admits that Labour was too focused in the early period on those further down the scale.

"In the early period we focused rightly on long-term unemployed and youth unemployment, but people did not believe we had not done enough on incapacity benefit.

"Part of our problem was that we had a national minimum wage, and tax credits for the whole country that meant people in the south that were seemingly on higher incomes were actually – due to higher living costs – feeling they were struggling, but tax credits were not getting to them."

 

[treelover]

Afiak, IB replaced 'single payments' for things like laundry, (many many disabled people have problems with incontinence for instance), or extra heating, now with the replacement, ESA, these allowances are not incorporated, its a war on the poor and no amount of sophistry will change that.

 

[_angel_]

To be fair, in the context of the article it appears he is arguing more that welfare provisions did not stretch far enough up the income scale which I think has something to it. If you restrict benefits/redistributive measures to those at the very bottom you do not build broad base of support for them then you are susceptible to the sort of argument that he quotes. Obviously I wouldn't put it past him to implement more draconian welfare measures.

This unease takes Balls to what he regards as one of the most important Labour goals – not implemented entirely with success – which is being abandoned by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. That is the ambition of achieving "progressive universalism" in which the welfare state helps society from the sick, to the less well-off, to the struggling middle classes.

Balls, who played a key role in devising tax credits which top up the pay of the less well-off rather than handing out benefit cheques, admits that Labour was too focused in the early period on those further down the scale.

"In the early period we focused rightly on long-term unemployed and youth unemployment, but people did not believe we had not done enough on incapacity benefit.

"Part of our problem was that we had a national minimum wage, and tax credits for the whole country that meant people in the south that were seemingly on higher incomes were actually – due to higher living costs – feeling they were struggling, but tax credits were not getting to them."

If the minimum wage were enough to live on, tax credits would not be necessary.

 

[Combustible]

If the minimum wage were enough to live on, tax credits would not be necessary.

That's obviously one way of doing it but tax credits have certainly had a positive impact. But the fact they are relatively narrowly targeted can mean that a broad base of support is not built up behind them and also makes genuinely regressive changes like the Lib Dems allowance raise seem appealing. My point was that appeared to be the main thrust of the article rather than particularly being a call for further draconian welfare measures.

 

[_angel_]

That's obviously one way of doing it but tax credits have certainly had a positive impact. But the fact they are relatively narrowly targeted can mean that a broad base of support is not built up behind them and also makes genuinely regressive changes like the Lib Dems allowance raise seem appealing. My point was that appeared to be the main thrust of the article rather than particularly being a call for further draconian welfare measures.

Yes, but if you don't have children you can't get very much, that's the problem.
Tax credits were better than no tax credits certainly, but the onus should always have been on the employer paying enough to live on and then the govt maybe subsidizing small to medium employers to help with their staffing bill, rather than the tax payer paying to subsidize big or multinational companies to get cheap labour, though.

 

[treelover]

Someone elsewhere has posted that Purnell has joined the Community Organisers, London Citizens, is this right? what do people in LC make of him, do they know his record in destroting poor peoples lives with his welfare reforms.

not sure about LC either, tbh

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Someone elsewhere has posted that Purnell has joined the Community Organisers, London Citizens, is this right? what do people in LC make of him, do they know his record in destroting poor peoples lives with his welfare reforms.

not sure about LC either, tbh

Purnell signed up to do some community organiser training with LC, I'm not sure an individual can simply join to be honest.

LC are religious dominated, trade union influenced progressive anti poverty types, broadly on the left on most things from what I can see, and heavily influenced by the US community organising model, they do some good things - however most of their leaders are careerists or wannabe leaders from what I can see.

I think you would like them to be honest.

 

[treelover]

Purnell has just become head of the IPPR, the neo-liberal thinktank(though the media ridiculously calls it, left of centre') and right on que, the Guardian CIF publishes an article on welfare reform by IPPR wonk, Kate Stanley, who was in the vanguard of pushing welfare changes as early as 2004.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

and?

 

[Obnoxiousness]

Chim chim-in-ey, chim chim-in-ey
Chim chim cher-ee!
A sweep is as lucky, as lucky can be
Chim chim-in-ey, chim chim-in-ey
Chim chim cher-oo!
Good luck will rub off when I shakes 'ands with you

Or blow me a kiss and that's lucky too!

 

[Bakunin]

Is it just me, or does that smug face and repulsive little grin bring to mind thoughts of some pool balls in a sock?

 

[killer b]

any kind of torture fantasy is fair game with purnell.

it certainly isn't just you.

 

[killer b]

is that him on the review show?

still a cunt.

 

[Streatham_Mao]

Im surprised you think this. It's been JC+ policy for ages that, after thirteen weeks (three months) of claiming JSA you must expand your search parameters. At that point, you have to look further afield and consider work that isn't remotely connected to your skills or what you may have been doing previously for example.

I have never understood this. If you can't get a job when you are skilled, why is someone going to employ you when you aren't? Surely the obvious answer is some reskilling to repair decaying skills/enhance them?

...Oh wait, that costs money and means admitting there's a problem that isn't necessarily your fault. Silly me.

 

[treelover]

I sincerely hope that James Purnell already Head of Digital and Radio does not become BBC Director Of The BBC: as Works and Pensions Secretary under New Labour we kow he was responsible for much of the orginal brutal welfare reforms, including abolishing Incapacity Benefit,. introducing ESA, sanctions , etc. No account of disabled and sick peoples concerns were raised when Tony Hall headhunted him for the former post mentioned above. Says it all what the elite think about this very vulnerable part of society.

 

[killer b]

It's ok, they're probably going to appoint and out-and-out fascist instead.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why isn't he dead yet?

 

[8ball]

Why isn't he dead yet?

I'm going to guess it's because he's not yet 50.
His mean life expectancy would be about another 32 years.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm going to guess it's because he's not yet 50.
His mean life expectancy would be about another 32 years.

I didn't think it'd be age that did for him

 

[JimW]

...
His mean life expectancy would be about another 32 years.

And what a mean life he has lived.

 

[mauvais]

I met him once. I knew I had some grudge against him, and that it was for something specific that he did under New Labour, but I couldn't remember what, so I had to just have a boring chat.

 

[Almor]

I'm going to guess it's because he's not yet 50.
His mean life expectancy would be about another 32 years.

Would his kind life expectancy be lower? Is that why he was such a shit?