Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:18 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Do you write Cameron's U-turn speeches?

nope, I haven't U turned as far as I can see.

we don't share the same politics, we know that cod'ead, unfortunately for us neither of our politics works entirely, we'll keep the cycle of the conservatives shrinking the public sector "Labour" in and they'll spend, spend, spend, then we'll have another financial crisis (maybe national and not global) and the whole orry cycle will start again.

we're all a bit daft to expect anything different, in honesty.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:30 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

In the lead up to the election, a lot of people fell for that line but the pickle is actually the result of certain bankers gambling with money they didn't have.
The Labour government did the right thing at the right time by recapitalising British banks ... and Ozzie still hasn't said what he would have done.

Everyone knew (including Labour, Darling did say so) that spending would have to be reduced.
The question was, by how much and over what period of time to do it.
Dave and co., convinced enough people that it needed to be done fast (despite the high probability of utterly knackering growth in the process, as we are now seeing and as many predicted). He and his millionaire cabinet are untouched by all this (but are of course, all in it together) and are using the excuse of debt reduction to dismantle any part of the welfare state that they can. e.g. The NHS, schools, the safety net of benefits (except, of course, those that the middle class voters get, like child benefit) whilst raising VAT (which hits the poorest smack in the area of necessities but the rich only in losing a tiny amount of luxury, and then only perhaps ... incidentally, just look back at the history of VAT, who introduced it and who has always raised it? I'll give you a clue, never Labour) ... and all while Dave and co. are positing ideas like reducing the 50p top rate of tax and doing bvgger-all about offshoring of profits to avoid tax (e.g. Vodaphone, Tesco etc ... and, let's not forget, Virgin, who have just bought a chain of banks from us, nice and cheap).

But we must remember that it's all Labour's fault for running up a debt lower than the tories had.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:35 am  

Standee wrote:

not at all, I left the discussion because the Sin Bin is full of people who blame everything on someone else and take no personal responsibility for their position ...

Hang on a minute, Standee: so are you saying that, in the context of this thread, you:

a) agree with the taxpayer subsidising massively profitable businesses by giving them free labour;

b) really believe that someone with a family and a partner in a job should go halfway around the country to find another job, and that it will be perfectly easy for them to get and pay for additional accommodation etc;

c) that someone in the above situation should simply uproot their family to go wherever there's a job of any variety – regardless of the partner then losing a job and the impact on the children, including their education;

d) that either of b) and c) are someone refusing to take personal responsibility;

e) that a married couple (to borrow from the specific example here) need to know that they have 20 year's security ahead of them before having a child;

f) and in relation to e) where do they find that security, given the decline in job security in the UK over the last 30 years?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:46 am  

Mintball wrote:

Hang on a minute, Standee: so are you saying that, in the context of this thread, you:

a) agree with the taxpayer subsidising massively profitable businesses by giving them free labour;

b) really believe that someone with a family and a partner in a job should go halfway around the country to find another job, and that it will be perfectly easy for them to get and pay for additional accommodation etc;

c) that someone in the above situation should simply uproot their family to go wherever there's a job of any variety – regardless of the partner then losing a job and the impact on the children, including their education;

d) that either of b) and c) are someone refusing to take personal responsibility;

e) that a married couple (to borrow from the specific example here) need to know that they have 20 year's security ahead of them before having a child;

f) and in relation to e) where do they find that security, given the decline in job security in the UK over the last 30 years?

a) I agree with the taxpayer paying for a limited period of time where someone is expected to evidence their ability to do a job, what I don't agree with is their being no set criteria for acceptance as a permanent employee, if an individual on a placement achieves certain goals then they should get a job, otherwise, as you say, it's just subsidising big business, which is wrong.

b) yes, people should be prepared to move, digs are not that expensive if you look hard enough, even in central London, but it's far easier to sit at home and sponge of the state whilst posting on an internet forum how hard done by you are.

other points all combined) too many people in the UK, and the Western world as a whole, see a family as a right, it isn't, it's a decision and not one that should, in my opinion, be subsidised at every step by the state. Many people bemoan their inability to afford their family expenses, but they are unrealistic about what they should actually expect. Apparently if you spend more than 10% of your income on something then you are in poverty for that (fuel for example) a lot of people are in Sky, Bright House and Beer and Cigs poverty by that measure.

I think society as a whole needs a reality check, if you're not part of the solution, you are the problem. As Annakin has done, get on your bike and all that.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:02 am  

Standee wrote:

... if you're not part of the solution, you are the problem...

This winner of this week's broad-brush award for not actually grasping the issue.

Incidentally, have you compared vacancies against unemployed recently?
It's currently 1 vacancy for 5 unemployed.
i.e. 4 in every 5 can't get a job.
Not won't, but can't.

But, hey, that's their own fault, they are not living in the real world?
I would suggest their world is grindingly real.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:12 am  

Standee wrote: other points all combined) too many people in the UK, and the Western world as a whole, see a family as a right, it isn't, It is you muppet. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents Article 12.

Standee wrote: other points all combined) too many people in the UK, and the Western world as a whole, see a family as a right, it isn't, It is you muppet. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents Article 12.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:12 am  

Standee wrote:

a) I agree with the taxpayer paying for a limited period of time where someone is expected to evidence their ability to do a job, what I don't agree with is their being no set criteria for acceptance as a permanent employee, if an individual on a placement achieves certain goals then they should get a job, otherwise, as you say, it's just subsidising big business, which is wrong...

So you are perfectly happy with your money helping line the pockets of vastly successful corporations – yes or no?

Standee wrote:

b) yes, people should be prepared to move, digs are not that expensive if you look hard enough, even in central London, but it's far easier to sit at home and sponge of the state whilst posting on an internet forum how hard done by you are.

So that's a 'no, I don't believe in family life – children can be shunted around with no ill effects and they don't matter anyway'? Jebus wept.

Have you actually got any clue about the impact on children of shunting them all over the place? Or is the reality that you really don't give a toss about families and family life? Have you been that suckered by the ideology of the last 30 years?

Standee wrote:

... other points all combined) too many people in the UK, and the Western world as a whole, see a family as a right, it isn't, it's a decision and not one that should, in my opinion, be subsidised at every step by the state. Many people bemoan their inability to afford their family expenses, but they are unrealistic about what they should actually expect. Apparently if you spend more than 10% of your income on something then you are in poverty for that (fuel for example) a lot of people are in Sky, Bright House and Beer and Cigs poverty by that measure...

Well done. Could you have swept that brush any more widely – and still avoided answering the question I asked you? You started this baloney about family – now you're ducking the specific points that you yourself, in doing that, have raised.

Standee wrote:

I think society as a whole needs a reality check, if you're not part of the solution, you are the problem. As Annakin has done, get on your bike and all that.

I did, sunshine. I know what I'm talking about. And that's a nice about turn after basically slagging off Annakin on the basis of nothing except your vastly generalised prejudices.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:23 am  

Mintball wrote:

So you are perfectly happy with your money helping line the pockets of vastly successful corporations – yes or no?

So that's a 'no, I don't believe in family life – children can be shunted around with no ill effects and they don't matter anyway'? Jebus wept.

Have you actually got any clue about the impact on children of shunting them all over the place? Or is the reality that you really don't give a toss about families and family life? Have you been that suckered by the ideology of the last 30 years?

Well done. Could you have swept that brush any more widely – and still avoided answering the question I asked you? You started this baloney about family – now you're ducking the specific points that you yourself, in doing that, have raised.

I did, sunshine. I know what I'm talking about. And that's a nice about turn after basically slagging off Annakin on the basis of nothing except your vastly generalised prejudices.

why do other people's families bother me? they chose to have them, they should take responsibility for them.

as for the rest, it's just your usual socialist dogma, I don't share your politics, and it's a good job, because if we all did we'd be royally f'd.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:29 am  

Standee wrote:

why do other people's families bother me? they chose to have them, they should take responsibility for them.

Back to the old "if you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em" argument?

You still haven't explained how to treat anyone who can afford them and then suddenly finds themselves, through absolutely no fault of their own, out of work.

The reason for 'U' turn comment was you moved pretty quickly from basically calling Anakin a feckless wastrel, who had embarked on an irresponsible breeding programme, to congratulating him in taking a minimum-waged job, all within about five pages.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:31 am  

Your arrogance is staggering. Actually it's not. The thought of apologising to Anakin Skywalker for completely insulting him hasn't even crossed your mind.