[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

Our best bits.
User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Stugene » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:05 pm

[iup=3577539]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

Wisdom.


Reported for being a Marxist.
Image
Taint
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Cal » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:09 pm

[iup=3577544]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577539]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

Wisdom.


Reported for being a Marxist.


That's a first, round here. :lol:

Oh. :|
I voted Tory, I voted for Brexit and I predicted Trump would win the US Presidency. I'm banned from Off-Topic for life.
User avatar
Green Gecko
Director
Joined in 2008
Location: Sussex
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Green Gecko » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:13 pm

Applying for housing benefit is a horrible and degrading process and in my experience half the time you have to pay it back when you actually find work due to some administrative strawberry float up. The cost of working is indeed sometimes higher than claiming benefit, which is why I now work from home and run my own business as well as part time work, also due to a disability (benefits for which are being removed entirely because I'm not missing a leg or whatever, and which I don't claim due to pride - perhaps that makes me a con?) .

Here's an idea. What is the difference between conservatively well considered means tested benefits such as university loans and grants for young entrepreneurs? Are those things totally fine to claim provided you have the wellbeing and mental faculty already established to obtain these? Of course. How many people can the government afford to pay those to? If there are not enough jobs, and your parents can't afford to keep you, or you are in an abusive family, what, then, is the right thing to do for an 18 to 21 year old?

This idea seems insane to me.
Support GRcade | t: @GRcade | FB: GRcadeUK | YT: GRcadeVideo | Twitch: GRcadeUK
User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Irene Demova

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Dual » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:16 pm

[iup=3577552]Cal[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577544]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577539]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

Wisdom.


Reported for being a Marxist.


That's a first, round here. :lol:

Oh. :|


:lol:
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Cal » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:23 pm

BIRMINGHAM, United Kingdom

HANNAN: ONLY A TORY-UKIP PACT CAN STOP LABOUR

Conservative Party MEP Daniel Hannan has taken to the Daily Mail today to insist that an electoral pact between UKIP and the Tories is the only way to stop the Labour Party taking control of the British government at the general election next year.

On the second day of Conservative Party Conference, Hannan, who is not in attendance this year, has written in the Mail: "Many Conservatives responded with irrational rage to the decisions of Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless to join Ukip, calling them egoists, liars and worse."

Instead, he urges Mr Cameron and Mr Farage to come to an arrangement, claiming that for the Tories, a UKIP MP should be better than a Labour one, and that for UKIP, the idea of a European referendum in 2017 should be enticing.

"'We don’t do pacts,’ say some Tories. Nonsense. Conservatives had pacts with the Liberal Unionists, the ‘Coupon’ Liberals of 1918 and, for six general elections after the Second World War, the National Liberals. We had such a deal as recently as the last election with the Ulster Unionist Party."


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... -tory-pact

Personally, I wish Daniel Hannan would cross the floor himself to join UKIP. He's a formidable public speaker and would make an excellent successor to Nigel Farage as Leader of the Party. With him aboard the ship UKIP would present a very compelling case to the electorate. Still, interesting that there is even a possibility of a Con/UKIP pact now being openly talked about. Watch this space...
I voted Tory, I voted for Brexit and I predicted Trump would win the US Presidency. I'm banned from Off-Topic for life.
User avatar
Fries. Wedges. Crisps?
Bizarre Title
Joined in 2008
Location: Bered Kai Nev

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fries. Wedges. Crisps? » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:26 pm

Although I personally think this pseudo-fear of Labour that the Tories are so happy to propagate doesn't really exist in the vast majority of voters' minds, it does depress me that the current Labour party are so poor at the current political game that people are even considering something as utterly awful as a Tory/UKIP coalition as a viable alternative. :(
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:26 pm

I would riot in the strawberry floating streets if the next government was a Tory UKIP alliance :dread: I mean, that's like the government in V for Vendetta levels of scary.
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Moggy
Headmaster
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Moggy » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:27 pm

[iup=3577536]Dan.[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577474]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577440]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577415]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.


How seriously do you take the consideration of building a "good work ethic" with regards to benefits systems?


As New Labour's legacy has shown, it has to be a consideration.

This kind of meaningless statement works with your conservative leaning friends, but here you have to actually explain what you mean.


I too would like an explanation of this 'legacy'


As I posted earlier:

[iup=3577491]Moggy[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577445]Tineash[/iup] wrote:I'm too young to remember life before 1997, it must have been magical with full employment and no poverty.


What's funny is the Tory party was saying the same sort of thing back in the early 90s.

Mr Lilley said: 'The Conservative Party has always been the party of the family. We realise that relationships do break down but that should not be brought about or encouraged by government policy.' Asked whether he thought single mothers deliberately got pregnant to exploit the benefits system, he said: 'Perhaps were it not for the availability of housing in particular, people would approach having children more cautiously.' At last year's Tory Party Conference, Mr Lilley recited his 'little list' of fraudsters which included 'young women who get pregnant just to jump the housing list'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/torie ... 82903.html



This isn't a new thing or anything to do with Labour. The Tories have been on about housing benefits for decades.
User avatar
Fries. Wedges. Crisps?
Bizarre Title
Joined in 2008
Location: Bered Kai Nev

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fries. Wedges. Crisps? » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:29 pm

I don't think the legacy Eighthours was referring to is the same you're posting about, Moggy.
User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Winckle » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:32 pm

[iup=3577544]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577539]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

Wisdom.


Reported for being a Marxist.

"To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type."
User avatar
Moggy
Headmaster
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Moggy » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:32 pm

[iup=3577587]Dan.[/iup] wrote:I don't think the legacy Eighthours was referring to is the same you're posting about, Moggy.


The New Labour "legacy" referred to surely relates to people on benefits and people trying to get free housing. Something the Tories have gotten their knickers in a twist over for decades now, despite it not being a massive financial problem for the country.
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:36 pm

Housing benefit would be less of an issue today if Thatcher hadn't sold off the council houses.... The Tories have made this worse with the bedroom tax. By 'taxing' spare rooms they push families who can't afford this into private letting, paid for by the tax payer. This costs them more money. They're privatising social housing and then complaining about what it costs :fp: The ever decreasing stock of council houses also helps drive up the bill. In fact many of the private rentals being used are ex-council houses being rented back to the council for more money. Some owned by MPs....

But of course this bill is the poor's fault for being lazy.
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Karl
Consider The Following
Consider The Following
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Karl » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:41 pm

As I said before, in Conservative ideology only the poor can be lazy. Those who inherit wealth can have food and shelter without employment if they so wish and no-one blinks an eye.
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Cal » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:56 pm

[iup=3577582]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:I would riot in the strawberry floating streets if the next government was a Tory UKIP alliance :dread: I mean, that's like the government in V for Vendetta levels of scary.


Funny, because that's how I felt during the second half of the last New Labour administration. 3000+ new laws on the Statutes and a suffocating, unresponsive centralist government very keen on invasion of public privacy and freedoms... Still, the chances of a Con/UKIP coalition in power at the next election, whilst not entirely unlikely, remain - for the moment - rather distant, so take heart.
I voted Tory, I voted for Brexit and I predicted Trump would win the US Presidency. I'm banned from Off-Topic for life.
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:05 pm

It wasn't that bad cal. Don't you remember the D-Ream song? Honestly I was too young to really care about what was going on when Labour got into power. I remember we had a mock election at school and the Lib Dems won it on their policies by a landslide. :lol:
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Fries. Wedges. Crisps?
Bizarre Title
Joined in 2008
Location: Bered Kai Nev

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fries. Wedges. Crisps? » Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:57 pm

[iup=3577624]Cal[/iup] wrote:very keen on invasion of public privacy and freedoms


What invasions were these Cal? I genuinely can't think of any.
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:03 pm

[iup=3577735]Dan.[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577624]Cal[/iup] wrote:very keen on invasion of public privacy and freedoms


What invasions were these Cal? I genuinely can't think of any.

More CCTV cameras put up per capita than any other country? Terror laws? Abuse of terror laws. Labour were indeed Orwellian, but then so are the Tories.
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Fries. Wedges. Crisps?
Bizarre Title
Joined in 2008
Location: Bered Kai Nev

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fries. Wedges. Crisps? » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:06 pm

Does the CCTV thing really bother people though? In my opinion more CCTV cameras is a good thing; surely it's more likely to deter criminals (or at least make it easier to identify/prosecute them) and keep people safe?
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:07 pm

Who doesn't love being watched all the time?
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Rocsteady » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:29 pm

[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

That's an interesting idea, I'd never heard of it before today.

So is the thinking that the costs and relative pointlessness of giving the rich a sum of money would be outweighed by the cut in beauracracy that comes from means testing?
Image

Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests