Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: The British Politics Thread

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: The British Politics Thread Page: <<   < prev  220 221 [222] 223 224   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The British Politics Thread - 23/4/2014 4:56:33 PM   
jonson


Posts: 9004
Joined: 30/9/2005
The important thing is Goodfella, irrespective of how annoying UKIP may seem, they are opening the debate.
Should we give foreign aid to India who then send a rocket into space? In my opinion no. I'd rather it be used bump up the salaries of nurses and teachers. To give better care to cancer sufferers. To cut waiting lists in hospitals.
I pay my taxes like a good boy and I want it spent in this country. If there's anything left over, chuck it aboard but we must be the priority here.
Whether you agree with UKIP or not (I don't for the record) it's opening up a debate that people actually care about, and to be honest, the BBC's pathetic childish attempts to slur Farage at every opportunity, as well as the main parties inability to outwit him and present facts, is only making him and his party stronger. I don't like their thinking but welcome the debate, and whenever anyone just shrugs them off and accuses them of being racist, it's playing into their hands.



_____________________________

I've got all the Barbie ones!!!

Yeah but you're old. Really old. Old. Old. Old. Old.

(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6631
RE: The British Politics Thread - 23/4/2014 5:56:34 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
Although at the same time when they are using the art of the demagogue and most of their statements/posters etc are exhibiting factual truths but in reality are as less likely to happen than an extinction level asteroid strike then it is not really debate as the actual facts are not presented. It is true that foreign aid is something which shuld be looked at especially in times of severe financial crisis and when it is used primarily to grease the wheels of business, immigration may need to be looked at but the facts firstly need to be true in the sense that the likelihood of something actually happening You just need to look at the second page of their present manifesto to see this at work with claims of the evil foreign criminals, migrants stealing our green and pleasant land, nasty grasping immigrant after our benefits (not that it would be an issue as they have proposed the near complete elimination of all benefits for people fromt his country as much as anyone from abroad). Once again they are making promises of cutting taxes but increasing spending with it all coming from the EU costs (ignoring this would not cover even a quarter of what they propose to spend). Apparently Councils would be cutting management not front line staff which considering other promises of reducing the civil service by 2m people is a joke. They also state they wish to sell unused state assets and property which to me sounds like the wholesale sell off of assets they previously proposed which would leave us with nothing to fall back on in the event of further financial crisis.

It is all well to debate but it must be sensible and without an attempt to gain political leverage through fear and obfuscation of fact which is what UKIP appears to now stand for.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to jonson)
Post #: 6632
RE: The British Politics Thread - 23/4/2014 6:08:20 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8222
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodfella

We are historically and traditionally a Christian country but as times have evolved that is not really the case anymore, we are multi-faith country and the use of the word faith is key here because that doesn't necessarily denote religion.


As usual, IDS and Cameron were talking shit. If you want to get right down to it, we are historically a country of ancestor-worshippers and pagans, of druids and stone circles. Christianity has been around for a while, but curiously it has rarely sat entirely comfortably here, even in the Dark Ages. Certainly in comparison to places like Italy, Ireland and Spain. It's always been a slightly awkward fit, worn out of necessity rather than comfort or desire. Henry VIII was more than happy to do the unthinkable and tell Gods representative on earth to do one and start his own church just so he could get his end away, for example.

This sudden talk about Christian values is naked politicking to try and get traditional Tory voters back on side, it's clear that Cameron at least has little real time for it all but has just been urged on by Crosby as it will 'chime with the electorate'. IDS on the other hand is a zealot, and as such far more dangerous since he genuinely believes God is on his side.

(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6633
RE: The British Politics Thread - 23/4/2014 6:36:29 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan



. IDS on the other hand is a zealot, and as such far more dangerous since he genuinely believes God is on his side.



As is his very rich father in law meaning he doesn't have to pay any rent.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 6634
RE: The British Politics Thread - 23/4/2014 7:40:19 PM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson

The important thing is Goodfella, irrespective of how annoying UKIP may seem, they are opening the debate.
Should we give foreign aid to India who then send a rocket into space? In my opinion no. I'd rather it be used bump up the salaries of nurses and teachers. To give better care to cancer sufferers. To cut waiting lists in hospitals.
I pay my taxes like a good boy and I want it spent in this country. If there's anything left over, chuck it aboard but we must be the priority here.
Whether you agree with UKIP or not (I don't for the record) it's opening up a debate that people actually care about, and to be honest, the BBC's pathetic childish attempts to slur Farage at every opportunity, as well as the main parties inability to outwit him and present facts, is only making him and his party stronger. I don't like their thinking but welcome the debate, and whenever anyone just shrugs them off and accuses them of being racist, it's playing into their hands.




And what debate is this? Their manifesto is so full of holes that does it not concern you that in a supposedly forward-thinking, Western country this is what will help open up debates, because it does me? Surely to legitimately open up the debate and for it actually to be intelligent, make sense and most importantly, be practical, the ideas have to be fair, equal and plausible, and UKIP's aren't. I agree with David Cameron on barely anything, but I do on his opinion that they are a bunch of mad loonies and frankly anyone who supports them is the same. I do agree that the mainstream parties could speak out more on some of these issues but they don't have to respond to this kind of fairytale bullshit to 'open up the debate' because frankly it's a waste of time and it's not going anywhere.

Yes foreign aid has to be carefully regulated and we have to work hard against the corruption it can potentially create but it's still a system with a far more positives than negatives. There is also no reason why a foreign aid budget can't exist with a good, sustainable public sector budget. The idea we can't have both is one that only seems to occur when the opinion is to cut one or the other. I gave a set of reasons why foreign aid is important to grow this country as well. Also, in regards to India, the majority of foreign aid sent there doesn't go to the government, it goes through international charities and is aimed at helping a country where over one third of it's children is malnourished. Yes, the government have paid a part in that by choosing to spend their money elsewhere but by cutting foreign aid to India who does that punish? Certainly not the government.

I am totally on board with the BBC slurring Farage at every available opportunity, and I will continue to do so. The man's a moron, he's a bigot, he's a racist and he's genuinely dangerous if he obtains any more further real power. I don't really care if that's considered 'shrugging them off and accusing them of racism', I don't shrug them off, I examine their ideaologies and I fight back against most of them with common sense. It's not my fault that their disguise is thinly veiled and it's also not my fault that they're now getting offended by the fact that they're getting caught out. I don't believe a party like UKIP who have had so many of their pioneers make such outrageous and offensive public remarks should be treated with any such credibility that extends beyond completely disowning them as maniacs. I wouldn't say the other parties have the ability to outwit him, I think it's that they've yet to choose too, with the exception of Clegg who will try anything to get back into the frame, for hopefully the same reasons I've given.


_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to jonson)
Post #: 6635
RE: The British Politics Thread - 23/4/2014 8:12:27 PM   
sam89


Posts: 562
Joined: 1/5/2008
The issue with the EU is all about democracy. Somewhere between 50% - 70% of our laws are made by unelected, unaccountable EU bureaucrats, and we have absolutely no say in the matter. How can anyone support that if they believe in democracy?

(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6636
RE: The British Politics Thread - 23/4/2014 8:30:41 PM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon

quote:

ORIGINAL: sam89

The issue with the EU is all about democracy. Somewhere between 50% - 70% of our laws are made by unelected, unaccountable EU bureaucrats, and we have absolutely no say in the matter. How can anyone support that if they believe in democracy?


And that is exactly what the forthcoming elections are designed to do, force more power back to those living in EU countries and have a greater say in how the EU is run, particularly in terms of how the next President of the EU commission is elected. The next commissioner has to be approved by the parliament, the parliament of which we will hold an MEP seat from the 22nd May onwards.

UKIP run with that line too about this unregulated committee ruling roost over the UK from which we have no say in but some of those laws are vital, take human rights for example, some of those laws are minisicule as well and of little effect on our day-to-day lives. That's not to say they should be ignored and allowed to run feral but this fear factor that the EU are some kind of uncontrollable robot out to do us all serious damage is complete nonsense.

_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to sam89)
Post #: 6637
RE: The British Politics Thread - 23/4/2014 8:31:42 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
Actual estimates by independent non partisan sources are closer to 25-30% with some estimates as low as 6-12%. The 50-70% was gleaned by UKIP from a now discredited German report but the fact that we are not part of the single currency and other factors apparently creates a massive reduction in laws applicable to the UK. Even Germany is now only estimated to have 39% of law from the EU and France 27%.

< Message edited by sanchia -- 23/4/2014 8:32:48 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to sam89)
Post #: 6638
RE: The British Politics Thread - 25/4/2014 5:23:03 PM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon
UKIP have also had to suspend yet another member, this time for racially abusing Ed Miliband's parents. This council member harassed Labour members on Twitter stating that Miliband "couldn't possibly know what it's like to be British because his parents were immigrants." Is this the right time to point out, that, for the sake of it, the leader of his party's wife is a German immigrant funded by party donations and tax write-off's?

This is the second time as well that the gutter right-wing have had a personal dig at Miliband's parents, his father of whom is deceased. I realize Labour aren't everybody's cup of tea and are going to have to work hard to win people back around, but it should be noted the class and humility with which they have acted over these very personal, uncalled for and cruel digs at the heritage of their leader, who's father can't even defend himself anymore, not that he should have too.

This is UKIP, this is why I have no problem with the likes of the BBC constantly accosting them and turning them into a running joke. Because that's exactly what they are.



_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 6639
RE: The British Politics Thread - 26/4/2014 9:16:09 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
Problems with the UKIP manifesto with one of the "locals" being a publicist who works for UKIP and lives in London (also Farage's assistant) and another "Immigrants are taking jobs from out builders" being an Irish immigrant.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6640
RE: The British Politics Thread - 26/4/2014 11:53:40 AM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

Problems with the UKIP manifesto with one of the "locals" being a publicist who works for UKIP and lives in London (also Farage's assistant) and another "Immigrants are taking jobs from out builders" being an Irish immigrant.


Yeah, I saw the scandal over that poster. Reminds me of the BNP and the poster campaign they ran against Polish immigrants which included the picture of a WWII fighter-jet and the words 'This is real British', or something along those lines, and it turned out the fighter jet was manufactured in Poland.

I'm all for balanced and controlled immigration but what UKIP and other such groups propose isn't balanced and controlled immigration and some of their ideas for how to handle asylum seekers when they first arrive at our borders is scarily similar to concentration camps without the gassing. They also seem to be forgetting the amount of British immigrants who live in EU countries like Spain and Greece, that doesn't seem to be a problem and the numbers are a lot higher than most people think.

_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 6641
RE: The British Politics Thread - 27/4/2014 9:38:28 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
After all their problems you would also think they would have sorted out their vetting issues as another candidate makes dodgy comments.

quote:

A UKIP candidate has suggested comedian Lenny Henry should "emigrate to a black country" if he doesn't like living with whites.

William Henwood, who is standing for election in Enfield, north London, tweeted the comment in response to a call by Henry for greater diversity in the TV industry.

The comedian has suggested a change in the law to boost the low numbers of black people in the sector.

Henwood responded by tweeting: "He [Henry] should emigrate to a black country. He does not have to live with whites."


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6642
RE: The British Politics Thread - 27/4/2014 10:03:36 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8222
Joined: 31/7/2008
It's hard to imagine how a party like UKIP could attract racists and bigots.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 6643
RE: The British Politics Thread - 27/4/2014 10:52:16 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 6644
RE: The British Politics Thread - 27/4/2014 8:27:53 PM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

After all their problems you would also think they would have sorted out their vetting issues as another candidate makes dodgy comments.

quote:

A UKIP candidate has suggested comedian Lenny Henry should "emigrate to a black country" if he doesn't like living with whites.

William Henwood, who is standing for election in Enfield, north London, tweeted the comment in response to a call by Henry for greater diversity in the TV industry.

The comedian has suggested a change in the law to boost the low numbers of black people in the sector.

Henwood responded by tweeting: "He [Henry] should emigrate to a black country. He does not have to live with whites."



This shows what a rubbish comedian Lenny Henry is by the fact he has yet to spot the obvious comeback to this...

"But I'm from the black country...."

_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 6645
RE: The British Politics Thread - 28/4/2014 7:14:38 AM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5059
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Just watching Good Morning Britain. That Esther McVey's a right lying twat. Luckily the lovely Susanna was on hand to gently shut her up.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6646
RE: The British Politics Thread - 28/4/2014 11:15:02 AM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Just watching Good Morning Britain. That Esther McVey's a right lying twat. Luckily the lovely Susanna was on hand to gently shut her up.


Was this regarding the government's new 'Help To Work' programme measures? I hope she got a good, harsh dose of reality and humility on national television, and I hope the same for those who support these draconic, generalizing and unhelpful plans.

The Work Programme and Workfare as far as I can tell, have failed. The most recent statistics I saw placed Workfare as only having actually achieved getting just over 12.5% of it's clients into a paid job, and of those percentage only 7% of them actually end up getting a paid job where they were placed on their Workfare programme. I have been unemployed in the past two years, through no fault of my own not that that should matter, and had to attend the Jobcentre for the rigmour of using their 'services' and signing on. I can tell you that if you haven't done it under this government then consider yourself very lucky, it's a horrible experience and just the language used clearly demonstrates that the jobcentre and the government's current benefits regulation is more about trying to make as many cracks appear as possible where they can reduce, or all together, stop people's benefits. The new help to work programme is going to include such 'activities' as restoring public gardens and war memorials, that sounds eerily close to enfrorced community service doesn't it? Fortunately I don't have to go through this anymore and never reached the work programme stage, but you are left feeling like a criminal for being unemployed to start with, and something's really not right with that.

There will always be claimants who are disinterested, disengaged or too plain lazy to want to work. A benefits system will always offer an escape route but for every one person there that can abuse it, it will help six worthy others, whether they are a genuine work-seeking claimant who has paid tax previously and now needs a small amount of financial support, or a family who need one adult member to register as a full-time carer for a child with muscular dystrophy, or a young family where child tax credits are needed in support. It helps more people than it gets flamed for, but that seems to have been forgotten by many of late thanks to this government's anti-benefits campaign in which it has swept the unemployed and needy masses together and labelled most of them as disingenuous at best, damn right liars at worst. Television programmes like 'Benefits Street' (which was a fix by the way, a family friend is the head at a local nursery) and 'How To Get A Council House' have only further dumbed down the general public's thinking on this matter. I've always maintained that the Tory campaign slogan - For The Hard Working People of Britain - isn't so much about appealing to those who feel they meet that criteria. It's about sending a message about what they consider to be the rest, that if you haven't or can't currently hold a job that's 38-40 hours a week, regardless of the reason, then you're not "hard-working" and that alone is so prehistoric and proposterous it infuriates me every-time I see it. The clue is in the word 'work', not everybody can work, whether we're talking short-term or long-term. So are we making them second and third-class citizens now?

I don't disagree at all with a system being put in place to get long-term unemployed, those who can work, back into jobs, and I have no problem with regulations and sanctions being taken against those not meeting the criteria for their benefits but these have to be realistic and practical, and done with the claimant in mind, as that's the only way you get a high success rate. The Work Programme now enforces itself on all claimants after one year, which was only introduced last year and is another step in the Tory's measures against benefits. A year might seem a long time if you live in busy, bustling and growing Manchester where jobs may pop up more regularly (although there zero-hour contract jobs so don't ever expect to be able to sign a long-term lease on a property, go on holiday, buy a new car, take out a mobile phone contract etc. etc. etc. because you can't afford the risk) but come down somewhere like here. We have a lot of people who have been unemployed for more than a year, I know two personally and they want to work, there just aren't the jobs. They lost their previous jobs in similar circumstances to me (businesses closed) and are now having their anchor pulled away from them, the Work Programme offers them very little as prior to Workfare it's a national scheme with no practical local awareness. Workfare is the most contradictory idea of the lot. Let's pay small businesses money to take on the unemployed under the false guise these people might be able to get a job for 6.90 an hour after they've worked there for two years for free (and don't anybody dare tell me they work for their JSA, that's a benefit for the unemployed, and a small one at that). Does anybody really think that a company like Poundland aren't just happy to sit and take on these claimants in a majority, offer one or two a job from time to time, and then just keep the rest on until their workfare programme expires? I've seen the list of workfare programme providers locally to me and they are exactly the type of companies I expected them to be, they will have no problem using people. The amount of UK companies in 2013 who have pulled out of Workfare due to their general concerns of it's usuage greatly outweighs the number who apply to use it, there is a waiting list for claimants not because there are so many 'lazy dossers' waiting to be put on it, but rather because the companies who want in are on a very small list themselves.

I don't want to sound like I'm just ranting and knocking back every idea either, I have some of my own. I think for starters the Jobcentre and Universal Jobmatch in particular need a complete overhaul, I don't think the government should sell out people's futures to the highest job agency bidder either, I think the best one should be picked. I think there should be more involvement with the public sector like the NHS for example, who are crying out for staff. I think those long-term unemployed should be helped, rather than hindered, confidence I suspect is the one of the biggest issues with those who do actually want to work but are so out of touch and so far behind the rest of the country that they may not even properly know how to fill out an application form, much less attend an interview. Labour have already claimed figures of one in ten claimants don't have basic literacy skills. What about those suffering from medical conditions such as autism or asperger's syndrome which I don't doubt effects a job-searching process. And, yes, those who don't do what they're supposed to do and are so blatently disregarding about it should be sanctioned, but it should also be remembered if they have families, and especially young children, they can be sanctioned too. Is it their fault? Should they be punished? It's a really tricky system to negotiate, and the current government's right-wing approach to that creases me up. Perhaps the most ironic thing is that in 2013 the number of DWP jobs lost meant the sector couldn't keep up with workload related to the government's benefits changes. They couldn't get the schemes to get unemployed back into work at a fast rate because the people tasked with setting them up were being made unemployed themselves. Says it all.

The overriding point here has to be made too - there needs to be more jobs, and long-term jobs too. The government claims they've cut unemployment, I don't think they have, I think they have cut more JSA claimants and in the process massaged the figures and I think the few private sector jobs they've created are, as I mentioned, zero-hour contract jobs and only available in certain areas of the UK. Businesses are closing down here, not extending. Sure you could tell an unemployed person to move, but putting aside the dictatorial attitude of that kind of statement, on what capital exactly do they do it assuming they are probably quite poor? It's a vicious situation that's got no better and all that's happening now is the government are trying to cost-cut the support network the same way they've been cost-cutting education. There's nothing more too it than that, it's not about getting unemployed people back into work, it's about cutting how much they cost whilst they're unemployed.

< Message edited by Goodfella -- 28/4/2014 4:12:52 PM >


_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 6647
RE: The British Politics Thread - 28/4/2014 6:12:30 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Just watching Good Morning Britain. That Esther McVey's a right lying twat. Luckily the lovely Susanna was on hand to gently shut her up.


It is like when she was being interviewed on BBC breakfast following a BBC survey which showed over 28% of renters had gone into arrears following the "Bedroom Tax". She sneered over these figures claiming the BBC figures where wrong when she had figures from the association of Housing Trusts and others which supported the scheme. The interviewer who had the figures to hand pointed out that the Association of Housing Associations actually stated that over 66% were now in arrears as a result of the scheme at which point she got very snarky and defensive and almost insulting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcW8NSJidH0

At 2:50.

From this I would agree that yes she has a tendency to be more than economical with the truth and that she thinks the electorate are stupid and she can make things up and they will not check them.

It appears she does it a lot.

http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/10/mcvey-gets-caught-out-on-stats-for-the-third-time/

< Message edited by sanchia -- 28/4/2014 6:18:41 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 6648
RE: The British Politics Thread - 28/4/2014 8:23:05 PM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon
Oh look, Esther McVey has caught a break for a bit. Her far-more evil, less-sophisticated twin sister will be taking the limelight for awhile -

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2014/04/katie-hopkins-it-s-time-we-issued-an-unemployed-person-s-uniform

Hopkins is a cheap, controversy-seeking attention whore but it still never fails to annoy me when I see her open that flab of her's, especially when it's about as something important and as sensitive as this. I always look out for her in town (she's from a place close to me, unfortunately) but I've yet to see but don't worry if I ever do you can guarantee I will give her a far more humiliating experience than an unemployed person wearing a uniform I can tell you that.



_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 6649
RE: The British Politics Thread - 28/4/2014 9:00:46 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
It is a great shame that the multiple adulteress Katie Hopkins is not allowed to fade into well deserved obscurity. If there is someone who is most definitely not qualified to provide moral advice it is her as she is about as far from having personal or social morality as it is possible to be.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6650
RE: The British Politics Thread - 28/4/2014 11:43:40 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1566
Joined: 20/10/2012
Katie Hopkins is proof that some people are far happier to be thought of as a total cunt than being ignored.



_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 6651
RE: The British Politics Thread - 29/4/2014 6:34:13 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
It is rather a pathetic approach to life but I get the impression that does sum her up.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 6652
RE: The British Politics Thread - 30/4/2014 8:21:43 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
What a travesty. UKIP doing its usual pathetic approach when asked questions. "You are not a serious political programme" when asked the question over should they be taking money from a outright racist homophobic individual who claims rape does not exist in marriage (Demetri Marchessini). Also stating why should they not take his money. The incredibly dismissive approach to the question of should they be taking money from such an individual says it all and the fact they appear to be claiming they have no idea where the money comes from is very dubious. Also from the way Farage would not answer any questions when asked the same thing (in precisely the same way as the bloke being interviewed and in the same tone) makes him either a completely inept leader or being economical with the truth. It does show the disdain they hold for the voters though.

Overall the party is a joke but a dangerous one which may well end up ruining this country.

< Message edited by sanchia -- 30/4/2014 8:24:29 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 6653
RE: The British Politics Thread - 6/5/2014 7:10:31 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18134
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27289148

Zero hour contracts must now be taken or risk losing benefits. There is a claim that the benefit would alter on the weeks which the claimant is getting no hours but considering it can take over a month to get the initial payment and the number of cuts in civil servants in the area I doubt such alterations could happen without significant delay leaving people in the same boat of being without money to live on.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to jonson)
Post #: 6654
RE: The British Politics Thread - 6/5/2014 5:25:19 PM   
Sinatra


Posts: 7841
Joined: 3/10/2005
Yeah, I dont mind the idea, but the balancing payments would probably be delayed.

I'm all for slashing benefits as much as possible, but this may be a tad OTT.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 6655
RE: The British Politics Thread - 6/5/2014 6:23:38 PM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinatra

Yeah, I dont mind the idea, but the balancing payments would probably be delayed.

I'm all for slashing benefits as much as possible, but this may be a tad OTT.


Really, can I ask why? And when you say "slashing benefits", what are we talking about here? Only about 3% of total welfare is made up by Job Seekers Allowance claimants and despite our current government's best attempts to paint them all as low-life scroungers that's not quite the case. I was unemployed last year and got 140 a fortnight, hardly a life of luxury as I'm sure you can imagine, but it's a required financial support whilst I was searching for work, I also spent the previous 12 years of my life paying taxes so I only claimed back a very tiny amount of what I've paid in and in this area I've paid high rate of taxes for the money I've earned too. The majority of the rest of benefits is actually spent on the elderly, the sick and the disabled. I'd like to think that everybody is still okay with that as I'd assume that if we were in that position we'd want the same level of support to be available to us as well, and in the case of the first there's a good chance it will happen to a lot of us one day anyway.

If the government thinks that zero-hour contract jobs are going to solve the problem of unemployment then they're living on another planet. Job security is crucial to people, especially in the current economy, and this doesn't exactly tune in with the Tories push on making work pay does it? Work doesn't pay on a zero hour contract because the risks are so high that people will struggle to control their finances and it will also see debt generally rise anyway because you will see more people turn to things like back-street credit cards and payday loans. Zero-hour contract jobs are also typically with companies who will have no problem giving you the boot when it financially suits them, leaving you potless and with no prior warning. It leaves people very uncomfortable and unstable, and in a lot of these cases we are talking about working class families where children are involved and I think that's very concerning, especially with the point both posters raised about the other benefit payments and the timing.

I would also think this latest move highlights that there is still an unemployment problem in this country and that it exists because of the lack of permanent full-time and part-time positions, not to mention career and graduate opportunities. It's a move engineered to force down the unemployment numbers at the expense of already-struggling people as we move into an election year. It also shows that the Tories especially have been lying about the number of jobs they have created.

_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to Sinatra)
Post #: 6656
RE: The British Politics Thread - 6/5/2014 7:04:16 PM   
galvatron


Posts: 1257
Joined: 1/10/2005
No mention of how much 'welfare' has been given to support business. How much 'welfare' is given to the train companies? How much 'welfare' goes straight to landlords via Housing Benefit?

The notion that people on 75 a week are living the life of luxury is ridiculous. Try being on the dole for a bit, it's not great.

(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6657
RE: The British Politics Thread - 6/5/2014 7:15:29 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8222
Joined: 31/7/2008
If someone wants a zero-hour contract because it suits their lifestyle then that's fair enough. I know a few people who have young children who don't want the bind of having to do X number of hours a week, but still like having a job to go to when they want the cash etc. Forcing people who may have paid NI for decades to do a job with no guarantee of income, no security and few-to-no job benefits (such as holiday and sick pay) under threat of having money - money that is by rights theirs to claim anyway - stopped altogether is grotesque.

As for unemployment still being a problem - of course it is. A massive one in fact that it's clear the coalition don't have the faintest idea how to address. I can only speak from my own experience, but in my last job and in my current one, there are more people on zero-hour contracts than permanent ones. Those on such contracts don't stay for long, and call in sick a great deal since they have no investment in the place (which fucks over the permanent staff who increasingly come to feel put-upon, under-appreciated and resent the situation). There has also been a significant increase in the hiring of "interns", which is a charming way of terming people who work but don't get paid money; they get paid with a few lines on a CV.

< Message edited by superdan -- 6/5/2014 7:17:12 PM >

(in reply to Goodfella)
Post #: 6658
RE: The British Politics Thread - 6/5/2014 7:52:50 PM   
Goodfella


Posts: 17186
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: North Devon

quote:

ORIGINAL: galvatron

No mention of how much 'welfare' has been given to support business. How much 'welfare' is given to the train companies? How much 'welfare' goes straight to landlords via Housing Benefit?

The notion that people on 75 a week are living the life of luxury is ridiculous. Try being on the dole for a bit, it's not great.


Some very interesting points raised there and I quite agree about the dole, it's really a pittance and after rent, food, living and travel expenses are paid there's not a lot left. The idea that people can actually 'live' on the dole is absolutely ridiculous, no matter what nonsense Iain Duncan-Smith spews.

quote:

If someone wants a zero-hour contract because it suits their lifestyle then that's fair enough. I know a few people who have young children who don't want the bind of having to do X number of hours a week, but still like having a job to go to when they want the cash etc. Forcing people who may have paid NI for decades to do a job with no guarantee of income, no security and few-to-no job benefits (such as holiday and sick pay) under threat of having money - money that is by rights theirs to claim anyway - stopped altogether is grotesque.


That's a fair point although by the same token I know a few young people with young families who want some form of guaranteed hours as otherwise the risk of coming off certain benefits to take the job are just too great. A paycheque, whether it be from an employer or Universal Credit, is vital in it's regularity and certainty to these kinds of people. The reality is though that zero-hour contract jobs aren't typically cushy numbers for mums to top up their pocket money whilst they take care of the kids and Dad is on a 40,000-a-year salary. They are being farmed out to people who need full-time jobs just to survive, they are being abused by major companies like Tesco who use them to drastically cut staff costs when certain demand arises or drops off and the more that are allowed to exist, the less full-time, permanent jobs will be created.

quote:

As for unemployment still being a problem - of course it is. A massive one in fact that it's clear the coalition don't have the faintest idea how to address. I can only speak from my own experience, but in my last job and in my current one, there are more people on zero-hour contracts than permanent ones. Those on such contracts don't stay for long, and call in sick a great deal since they have no investment in the place (which fucks over the permanent staff who increasingly come to feel put-upon, under-appreciated and resent the situation). There has also been a significant increase in the hiring of "interns", which is a charming way of terming people who work but don't get paid money; they get paid with a few lines on a CV.


Yep, it's just a strain on an already greatly-reduced workforce and it doesn't actually help to solve the problem of long-term unemployment. In my own experience a lot of jobs I've had have been zero-hour contract jobs, just not defacto. I've worked for many employers who have never even made me sign a contract or showed me my terms of employment, in doing so I've worked weeks varying 15 hours to 75 hours and I've had up to a month's notice of termination of employment right down to being called 15 minutes before a shift was due to start only to be informed that the kitchen would now be closing for the forseeable future. That's a big problem down here and the government's push on zero-hour contracts is only going to further allow employers round my way to abuse staff, both those on zero-hour contracts and those permanently and fully employed, and that's not a good sign.

_____________________________

"It is the Shawshank Redemption! Just with more tunneling through shit and less fucking redemption."

If you can quote the rules, then you can obey them.


(in reply to galvatron)
Post #: 6659
RE: The British Politics Thread - 7/5/2014 12:02:57 PM   
Sinatra


Posts: 7841
Joined: 3/10/2005
Hey Goodfella, I am sure you are a hard working chap and I'm glad to hear you are back working again mate, that's my first point.

However, there are a huge amount of fuckwits out there that do think that living on the dole is a way of life. That is why I support any measures that help get these lazy bastards working again... even if it mean they only get 20 more a week from working rather than being on benefits.

As I've already mentioned, I don't like that sound of the zero hour contracts either, but if it suits some people and they can get more from a job than being on the the dole then who am I to say that they can't use it as a stop gap.

Under Labour the benefits society got out of control, now I think that the fuckwits out there are thinking twice before taking the piss.

People like you deserve every penny of the support they get when they are faced with unemployment, unfortunately not everyone is like you.

(in reply to galvatron)
Post #: 6660
Page:   <<   < prev  220 221 [222] 223 224   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: The British Politics Thread Page: <<   < prev  220 221 [222] 223 224   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125