Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
But I don't know what I think.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think he'll run for leader again?" No I can't see that .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think he'll run for leader again?" Very much doubt it. He is a man of integrity and he's stood by his principals. Simples | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair, and no matter what I may think of some of his policies, he sounded genuine and gave the best speech I have ever heard from him." It was either very sincere performance or a masterstroke of calculated cunning befitting that of a bond villain.... They say beware a quiet man..... But I'm tending to believe his motive are not sinister | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think he'll run for leader again? Very much doubt it. He is a man of integrity and he's stood by his principals. Simples" He drove the principles in question! He didn't just take up the post last week !! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 20/03/16 10:13:58]" Not just me then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's a man who has presided over the program of sanctions which have led to hundreds of deaths of vulnerable benefit claimants and plunged thousands more children into poverty. I'm not interested in his words now or whatever ulterior motive he now has. His actions over the last six years speak far louder."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bloke was behind all the reforms that have taken money from the poor and disabled. And now none of it was his fault. Yeah right." Exactly, yet people have forgotten that and are lauding him now for his "principles". Loathsome man. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think he'll run for leader again? Very much doubt it. He is a man of integrity and he's stood by his principals. Simples He drove the principles in question! He didn't just take up the post last week !!" He was under enormous pressure to save money by the coalition and this government who are desperately trying to balance the books after the mess inherited from Labour. He did a great job as instructed but then saw the paradoxical contrast with other areas of the budget that favoured people on the opposite side of the spectrum. No wonder he felt aggrieved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"read Nadine Dories tweets about him begging her not to vote against the ESA cuts as the bill was all his work and how he didn't want her vote against to cause it to fail as its was to be HIS legacy utter piece of lying duplicitous filth in my eyes his resignation is all about post brexit vote and fuck all to do with his concience" not sure either of them can be trusted to tell the truth to be fair | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have people forgotten his 'double fist pump' at the £9 'living wage' announcement after £12bn was wiped off the welfare budget bottom line, affecting the most at need? That should tell you everything you need to know about the mans sincerity. " That image sprang to mind immediately. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe that everyone is positioning themselves for Cameron's exit from the PM role and the outcome of the EU Exit vote. There's a long game being played." Yep. Why all of a sudden? The chancellors plans were hardly secret or unpredictable so he can act as shocked as he likes but sincere? Never. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have people forgotten his 'double fist pump' at the £9 'living wage' announcement after £12bn was wiped off the welfare budget bottom line, affecting the most at need? That should tell you everything you need to know about the mans sincerity. " Actions speak louder than words. Whatever game he's playing it's not because he's found a conscience. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oscar winning performance." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I often wonder what people really want from their politicians and which politician they feel embodies all those attributes...... "Excellent observation. I only know what I don't want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair, and no matter what I may think of some of his policies, he sounded genuine and gave the best speech I have ever heard from him. It was either very sincere performance or a masterstroke of calculated cunning befitting that of a bond villain.... They say beware a quiet man..... But I'm tending to believe his motive are not sinister "He is extremely disliked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I often wonder what people really want from their politicians and which politician they feel embodies all those attributes......
Excellent observation. I only know what I don't want."I wonder if that's partly because the more able type of politician are less motivated by ambition and therefore less likely to create a high profile for themselves... I'm sure there must loads of people who would make fantastic politicians but are maybe put off by all the hate and prejudice the public aims at anyone who tries to make a difference working with a restricted budget .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the man is a hypocrite. He's been the architect behind recent welfare reforms and was in agreement with the planned cuts to the more vulnerable in society, now all of a sudden he has a conscience?!! Yeah...right! He's playing the long game." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair, and no matter what I may think of some of his policies, he sounded genuine and gave the best speech I have ever heard from him. It was either very sincere performance or a masterstroke of calculated cunning befitting that of a bond villain.... They say beware a quiet man..... But I'm tending to believe his motive are not sinister
He is extremely disliked."Maybe by some.....but not everyone.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think he'll run for leader again? Very much doubt it. He is a man of integrity and he's stood by his principals. Simples He drove the principles in question! He didn't just take up the post last week !! He was under enormous pressure to save money by the coalition and this government who are desperately trying to balance the books after the mess inherited from Labour. He did a great job as instructed but then saw the paradoxical contrast with other areas of the budget that favoured people on the opposite side of the spectrum. No wonder he felt aggrieved. " Mengele "did a great job as instructed" too....... What sort of defence is that ?!?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I often wonder what people really want from their politicians and which politician they feel embodies all those attributes......
Excellent observation. I only know what I don't want.
I wonder if that's partly because the more able type of politician are less motivated by ambition and therefore less likely to create a high profile for themselves...
I'm sure there must loads of people who would make fantastic politicians but are maybe put off by all the hate and prejudice the public aims at anyone who tries to make a difference working with a restricted budget ....
"I don't know Soxy to be honest. I sometimes wonder if it's all more about personality than politics anyway. I do know that I damn glad it's not me who doesn't have to balance the books while trying to keep voters happy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think he'll run for leader again? Very much doubt it. He is a man of integrity and he's stood by his principals. Simples He drove the principles in question! He didn't just take up the post last week !! He was under enormous pressure to save money by the coalition and this government who are desperately trying to balance the books after the mess inherited from Labour. He did a great job as instructed but then saw the paradoxical contrast with other areas of the budget that favoured people on the opposite side of the spectrum. No wonder he felt aggrieved. Mengele "did a great job as instructed" too....... What sort of defence is that ?!?! " Oh c'mon..... it's a bit early in the thread for Godwin's Law.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair, and no matter what I may think of some of his policies, he sounded genuine and gave the best speech I have ever heard from him. It was either very sincere performance or a masterstroke of calculated cunning befitting that of a bond villain.... They say beware a quiet man..... But I'm tending to believe his motive are not sinister
He is extremely disliked."Is that why voters in his constituency voted him in again last May? Give the guy a break, he's worked hard under very difficult circumstances. It's not difficult to understand why some people question the work ethic of some of his greatest critics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair, and no matter what I may think of some of his policies, he sounded genuine and gave the best speech I have ever heard from him. It was either very sincere performance or a masterstroke of calculated cunning befitting that of a bond villain.... They say beware a quiet man..... But I'm tending to believe his motive are not sinister
He is extremely disliked.
Is that why voters in his constituency voted him in again last May?
Give the guy a break, he's worked hard under very difficult circumstances.
It's not difficult to understand why some people question the work ethic of some of his greatest critics."Those pesky workshy disabled people  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the Tories, he's always been my preferred candidate, I always thought they had the best leader in him. He's honest genuine and sincere!. Whether you agree with his policies are two completely different things and I didn't agree with him on much." Yep, his CV was very honest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03nd95b This is the programme and while people watch can I remind everyone again this is the man that was motivated while out of Government and out of any Front Bench job to go and put his own money into a charitable Think-Tank (the Centre for Social Justice) to research why people were not getting the support they needed, why people fell through the safety net of Welfare, how to get more people back to work and how those in most need should be helped more. Yes those were what drove this man for 8 years. No easy life in Brussels like Mandelson, no Consultancy job at a foreign bank like Alastair Darling, no well paid job in New York running some outfit like Milliband and no well paid after dinner speaker career like Blair and Brown. No. This man got out into the poorest streets of the country. Lived with people to understand what forces were working against them. And it was this that drove him to take on the work he did in Government in 2010. I think those that call this man a 'hypocrite' need to go and read a dictionary. He resigned for the reasons given. Maybe he should have resigned earlier. Maybe he shouldn't have carried on in 2015. But he tried to fight from within and defend those he does actually care for. As IDS says people can argue politics and policies. I fully support the Welfare Cap as when I was working it was wrong for those in Welfare to get more per annum than I was getting working 60 hours a week. I supported the idea of Universal Credit to make life simpler for people in need to get support. I certainly support the idea that people on Welfare should not be free of the financial consequences of bringing kids into this world that those in work have. I do not support any removal of benefit for any disabled people. The assessments for PIP (which is actually a much better benefit than before) have been very badly done and caused too much grief to those in need. But those failures can be corrected easily with political will but this is lacking from Osborne and Cameron. And again I just remind people the huge success IDS had in making Pensioners better off (maybe too well off now) and the fact we have put more people back to work than ever before outside wartime. Especially young people, women and those who were written off Labour through disability. On balance IDS has got far more right than wrong. IMHO." Very well put | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's funny because I mentioned that taxes were disproportionate in another thread. See what response I got! "Yes you got told you were wrong because you were very selective in your comments and basically got the CGT numbers wrong ..... When you suggest in a Thread that the 'poor' have had money taken from them to fund the 'wealthy' who have got a tax cut in Capital Gains tax from 28% to 20% (28% reduction) and fail to mention that Standard Rate taxpayers got a bigger proportionate tax reduction from 18% to 10% (44%) it makes your arguments weak. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the man is a hypocrite. He's been the architect behind recent welfare reforms and was in agreement with the planned cuts to the more vulnerable in society, now all of a sudden he has a conscience?!! Yeah...right! He's playing the long game." i agree with this! He defended the cuts and also tried to gag the press | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03nd95b This is the programme and while people watch can I remind everyone again this is the man that was motivated while out of Government and out of any Front Bench job to go and put his own money into a charitable Think-Tank (the Centre for Social Justice) to research why people were not getting the support they needed, why people fell through the safety net of Welfare, how to get more people back to work and how those in most need should be helped more. Yes those were what drove this man for 8 years. No easy life in Brussels like Mandelson, no Consultancy job at a foreign bank like Alastair Darling, no well paid job in New York running some outfit like Milliband and no well paid after dinner speaker career like Blair and Brown. No. This man got out into the poorest streets of the country. Lived with people to understand what forces were working against them. And it was this that drove him to take on the work he did in Government in 2010. I think those that call this man a 'hypocrite' need to go and read a dictionary. He resigned for the reasons given. Maybe he should have resigned earlier. Maybe he shouldn't have carried on in 2015. But he tried to fight from within and defend those he does actually care for. As IDS says people can argue politics and policies. I fully support the Welfare Cap as when I was working it was wrong for those in Welfare to get more per annum than I was getting working 60 hours a week. I supported the idea of Universal Credit to make life simpler for people in need to get support. I certainly support the idea that people on Welfare should not be free of the financial consequences of bringing kids into this world that those in work have. I do not support any removal of benefit for any disabled people. The assessments for PIP (which is actually a much better benefit than before) have been very badly done and caused too much grief to those in need. But those failures can be corrected easily with political will but this is lacking from Osborne and Cameron. And again I just remind people the huge success IDS had in making Pensioners better off (maybe too well off now) and the fact we have put more people back to work than ever before outside wartime. Especially young people, women and those who were written off Labour through disability. On balance IDS has got far more right than wrong. IMHO." the why now..? this man of principle has for the last 6 years sat and implemented detrimental policies upon some of those same people he was so in favour of helping 8 years ago..? flip flopping from caring to not so caring to now caring so much that he's resigned.. listen to what Ross Altman said about him..? and Chalk this is about IDS so unless you want to have it to detract from that in a tit for tat labour / tory did this or that perhaps stick to the thread..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and Chalk this is about IDS so unless you want to have it to detract from that in a tit for tat labour / tory did this or that perhaps stick to the thread..?" Oh sorry. I was just comparing what he could have done and what he did. I thought a few examples would be helpful. That they were Labour people who ended up like IDS out of public office but chose a different path does actually make the point. Labour are supposed to be concerned for the poor and working class and yet when they get removed form office they sod off to places where they make shed loads of money. IDS chose a different unpaid path. OK he is a wealthy man in his own right but doesn't that make his efforts worth more? This is a very party political Thread. people are making some very broad criticisms based on party political lines and comments like 'vehement Tories' etc. So the context is well placed IMHO. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No easy life in Brussels like Mandelson, no Consultancy job at a foreign bank like Alastair Darling, no well paid job in New York running some outfit like Milliband and no well paid after dinner speaker career like Blair and Brown. No. This man got out into the poorest streets of the country. Lived with people to understand what forces were working against them. " You realise he is a multi-millionaire in his own right largely due to 'complex family trusts'. He has an easy life, yet said he could live on £53 per week benefits! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No easy life in Brussels like Mandelson, no Consultancy job at a foreign bank like Alastair Darling, no well paid job in New York running some outfit like Milliband and no well paid after dinner speaker career like Blair and Brown. No. This man got out into the poorest streets of the country. Lived with people to understand what forces were working against them. You realise he is a multi-millionaire in his own right largely due to 'complex family trusts'. He has an easy life, yet said he could live on £53 per week benefits! " I remember a documentary chronicling Piers Merchant living on benefits for a week in a Newcastle bedsit on £26.80 a week | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" the why now..? this man of principle has for the last 6 years sat and implemented detrimental policies upon some of those same people he was so in favour of helping 8 years ago..? " He explains why now. He feels he has lost the ability to dissuade Osborne and Cameron from the direction of current travel. And I think my comments above show that overall for the 6 years he has held office he has done a huge amount for the poorer sections of society. He was certainly NOT attacking them. When you have very low interest and inflation rates and you reduce the rate of increase of a Benefit from (say) 3% per year to 1.5% per year that does not take money from anyone on that day or that current year. It saves the Government money in the future and those are the headline numbers you see. It wasn't until the last Autumn Statement and this last Budget the cuts were going into disabled benefits. Do not confuse the slower implementation of Universal Credit (which is seen by those on it as a step forward because it assists the return to work) or the mishandling of PIP assessments with attacks on poor people. Yes it affects them but that was not IDS' intention. And again why can you not discuss the wider huge successes of people who are no longer on Welfare and have the dignity of work and a wage? Increasing numbers of whom are disabled and were not able to get back into work because of the Welfare structures that meant they hit a cliff edge of lost benefits if they did go to work. No attacks there surely? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the Tories, he's always been my preferred candidate, I always thought they had the best leader in him. He's honest genuine and sincere!. Whether you agree with his policies are two completely different things and I didn't agree with him on much." A genuine and sincere politician?? You must be joking!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" the why now..? this man of principle has for the last 6 years sat and implemented detrimental policies upon some of those same people he was so in favour of helping 8 years ago..? He explains why now. He feels he has lost the ability to dissuade Osborne and Cameron from the direction of current travel. And I think my comments above show that overall for the 6 years he has held office he has done a huge amount for the poorer sections of society. He was certainly NOT attacking them. When you have very low interest and inflation rates and you reduce the rate of increase of a Benefit from (say) 3% per year to 1.5% per year that does not take money from anyone on that day or that current year. It saves the Government money in the future and those are the headline numbers you see. It wasn't until the last Autumn Statement and this last Budget the cuts were going into disabled benefits. Do not confuse the slower implementation of Universal Credit (which is seen by those on it as a step forward because it assists the return to work) or the mishandling of PIP assessments with attacks on poor people. Yes it affects them but that was not IDS' intention. And again why can you not discuss the wider huge successes of people who are no longer on Welfare and have the dignity of work and a wage? Increasing numbers of whom are disabled and were not able to get back into work because of the Welfare structures that meant they hit a cliff edge of lost benefits if they did go to work. No attacks there surely?" Don't usually bother with your Tory party propaganda, because it's so obviously cherry-picked but to say that Universal Credit is seen as "a step forward by those on it" is so utterly laughable that it shows how divorced from those people you are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You realise he is a multi-millionaire in his own right largely due to 'complex family trusts'. " I just made the point myself that yes he is a wealthy man. And therefore could have just not bothered. But he did bother. For 8 years he bothered and spent his own 'wealth' to find the answers he would use later in Government. I notice you choose to sort of ignore that bit. He in ot a 'multi-millionaire' and if he was then 'so what'? His wealth is of the order of a £1 Million and entirely due to his wife's fortune and the fact he lives in a house owned by his Father in Law. Oh and what 'complex family trusts' would those be then? Care to give details or is that yet another broad brush stroke of political bias? Anything like those trusts created by those millionaire Milliband Brothers to avoid paying Inheritance Tax? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No easy life in Brussels like Mandelson, no Consultancy job at a foreign bank like Alastair Darling, no well paid job in New York running some outfit like Milliband and no well paid after dinner speaker career like Blair and Brown. No. This man got out into the poorest streets of the country. Lived with people to understand what forces were working against them. You realise he is a multi-millionaire in his own right largely due to 'complex family trusts'. He has an easy life, yet said he could live on £53 per week benefits! I remember a documentary chronicling Piers Merchant living on benefits for a week in a Newcastle bedsit on £26.80 a week "just read the guardian report on it: "with two days to go he was down to his last 61p, and his plan to save £3 out of his £26.80 had collapsed. On his last evening the gas and electricity ran out and he loitered in a working men's club, unable to afford a drink." Great way to entertain leading nations poverty. Make them dissolute - give them no hope, no jobs in their area, no food in their bellies or heat under their roofs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Don't usually bother with your Tory party propaganda, because it's so obviously cherry-picked but to say that Universal Credit is seen as "a step forward by those on it" is so utterly laughable that it shows how divorced from those people you are." Oh dear... why have a factual discussion when some personal digs can be made? You do not have a bloody CLUE what I do or do not know about Universal Credit. You assume because I am a Tory I really can't know. Because only Labour people really know? Yeah Right. As of the middle of 2015 175,000 people had made a claim on Universal Credit. Government figures showed that "Universal Credit claimants find work quicker, stay in work longer and earn more than the Job Seekers’ Allowance claimants". The total JSA claimant count in the UK is 760,000 people (representing 2.2% of the working-age population) and equates to over 20% of JSA claimants. As of September 2015 Universal Credit was available in over half of job centres across Great Britain and will be available in all Job Centres early 2016. (I do not have the latest numbers). Oh and that quote in there about satisfaction? Sebastian Payne (7 September 2015). "Labour defaults to Universal Credit attack at welfare questions". The Spectator (blogs). Care to give us some factual analysis of why Universal Credit is NOT well received? Well apart from not being enough money of course.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and Chalk this is about IDS so unless you want to have it to detract from that in a tit for tat labour / tory did this or that perhaps stick to the thread..? Oh sorry. I was just comparing what he could have done and what he did. I thought a few examples would be helpful. That they were Labour people who ended up like IDS out of public office but chose a different path does actually make the point. Labour are supposed to be concerned for the poor and working class and yet when they get removed form office they sod off to places where they make shed loads of money. IDS chose a different unpaid path. OK he is a wealthy man in his own right but doesn't that make his efforts worth more? This is a very party political Thread. people are making some very broad criticisms based on party political lines and comments like 'vehement Tories' etc. So the context is well placed IMHO." no its your usual smoke and mirrors.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the word 'vehement' is very apt considering the type of responses there have been "Is there ANY chance we can get some factual discussion out of you? I mean something that isn't full of ignorance, deliberately misleading numbers, out of context quotes and personal digs at people simply because they hold a different point of _iew? Sorry that was a question .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and Chalk this is about IDS so unless you want to have it to detract from that in a tit for tat labour / tory did this or that perhaps stick to the thread..? Oh sorry. I was just comparing what he could have done and what he did. I thought a few examples would be helpful. That they were Labour people who ended up like IDS out of public office but chose a different path does actually make the point. Labour are supposed to be concerned for the poor and working class and yet when they get removed form office they sod off to places where they make shed loads of money. IDS chose a different unpaid path. OK he is a wealthy man in his own right but doesn't that make his efforts worth more? This is a very party political Thread. people are making some very broad criticisms based on party political lines and comments like 'vehement Tories' etc. So the context is well placed IMHO. no its your usual smoke and mirrors.." And any chance of some factual discussion from you as well? You accuse me of 'smoke and mirrors' well take it apart with facts. That is how it works. The personal stuff adds nothing. And you just added the square root of even less ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No easy life in Brussels like Mandelson, no Consultancy job at a foreign bank like Alastair Darling, no well paid job in New York running some outfit like Milliband and no well paid after dinner speaker career like Blair and Brown. No. This man got out into the poorest streets of the country. Lived with people to understand what forces were working against them. You realise he is a multi-millionaire in his own right largely due to 'complex family trusts'. He has an easy life, yet said he could live on £53 per week benefits! I remember a documentary chronicling Piers Merchant living on benefits for a week in a Newcastle bedsit on £26.80 a week
just read the guardian report on it:
"with two days to go he was down to his last 61p, and his plan to save £3 out of his £26.80 had collapsed. On his last evening the gas and electricity ran out and he loitered in a working men's club, unable to afford a drink."
Great way to entertain leading nations poverty. Make them dissolute - give them no hope, no jobs in their area, no food in their bellies or heat under their roofs. "Yes and he was forced to concede that if he'd needed to replace clothes or other consumable items he wouldn't have been able to modify his spending pattern to cover those additional costs.. Interesting social experiment .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think he is genuinely passionate about what he did and tried to do at DWP but is hopelessly inept at putting putting his ideas into effect. Over the past six years he has been outmanoeuvred by the Treasury and George Osborne and forced into making cuts by a skinflint chancellor. A cunning and manipulative but numerically challenged chancellor that hasn't hit a single target or forecast in his time at no11. Eventually the comes a time when enough is enough. That time for IDS was last Friday. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh dear... why have a factual discussion when some personal digs can be made? You do not have a bloody CLUE what I do or do not know about Universal Credit. You assume because I am a Tory I really can't know. Because only Labour people really know? Yeah Right." What you are confusing is your opinion here. You are giving your opinion on IDS's resignation. You do not know factually why he resigned. You are giving your opinion on a letter he wrote. Given his 6 years of office you can appreciate a little pessimism. Whilst you can have your opinion it doesn't make it correct. The facts of more people being in work doesn't discount the number of people that have been put in direct hardship as a result of his sanctions and ultimately his policy sign-offs. You do not know the implications the reforms his policies have had. You mention that this can be changed with "political will" though political will is only changed with application of voter strength, as has just been seen with the current reaction to the disability tax changes. Any changes of 'political will', will take years to introduce, those years have direct effects on people. Those effects have affected people in the most severest of circumstances. A simple reformed character resignation letter does not change the lives cost under his department. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and Chalk this is about IDS so unless you want to have it to detract from that in a tit for tat labour / tory did this or that perhaps stick to the thread..? Oh sorry. I was just comparing what he could have done and what he did. I thought a few examples would be helpful. That they were Labour people who ended up like IDS out of public office but chose a different path does actually make the point. Labour are supposed to be concerned for the poor and working class and yet when they get removed form office they sod off to places where they make shed loads of money. IDS chose a different unpaid path. OK he is a wealthy man in his own right but doesn't that make his efforts worth more? This is a very party political Thread. people are making some very broad criticisms based on party political lines and comments like 'vehement Tories' etc. So the context is well placed IMHO. no its your usual smoke and mirrors.. And any chance of some factual discussion from you as well? You accuse me of 'smoke and mirrors' well take it apart with facts. That is how it works. The personal stuff adds nothing. And you just added the square root of even less ..." iv'e said my piece about him above and frankly not really interested in playing 'google/wickipedia' fact spouting which seems to be your raison d'etre.. feel free to be ironic again in mentioning others getting personal.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is a seasoned politician so words like 'principled, honest, genuine etc' may fit in well with his performance today however one needs to look at how some of his policies have effected the lives of some of those in society who genuinely have needs that most of us don't have a clue about.. balancing one against the other and his claim that he has only now after 6 years in post decided that its gone too far does not sit well.. Ross Altman has an interesting perspective on it.. " David Laws of the Lib dems also has an interesting persepective on it. If you watch todays Andrew Marr show in full on BBC iplayer you will see Marr inter_iew David Laws before he inter_iews IDS. In the inter_iew David Laws talks about the 5 years of coalition government (of which Laws himself was a liberal democrat minister), and reveals that IDS often had to team up with Clegg and the lib dems to rail back against and veto some of the proposed cuts Osbourne and the treasury wanted to force through. People keep going on and on about the last 6 years and IDS record of the last 6 years, but it does not appear to be that simple when you listen to people like David Laws who was on the inside over the 5 years of coalition government, he makes it very clear, it was Osborne who saw the Department for work and Pensions as a cash cow so he could lower his deficit in the treasury, Osborne never being interested in real reform, (while IDS wanted real reform to get people back into work) and Osborne wanting to hit the poor while giving to the rich. All the people attacking IDS on this thread would you prefer IDS did not resign over this and just carried on implementing Osbourne's cuts? What worries me now is that Cameron and Osbourne have appointed a simple "yes" man who will do what ever thay say in Steven Crabb. As John McDonnel tweeted yesterday "The government should look at the policy rather than appoint a "yes" man. Andrew Marr seemed to put it very well when he said it looks like the government are being run by Ant and Dec (Cameron and Osborne), and the rest of the cabinets _iews are being pushed aside and that is why IDS resigned because his voice and his message was not being heard. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the word 'vehement' is very apt considering the type of responses there have been
Is there ANY chance we can get some factual discussion out of you? I mean something that isn't full of ignorance, deliberately misleading numbers, out of context quotes and personal digs at people simply because they hold a different point of _iew?
Sorry that was a question ...."See my comment above. QED. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" iv'e said my piece about him above and frankly not really interested in playing 'google/wickipedia' fact spouting which seems to be your raison d'etre." Hmmm ... So someone shows some knowledge of a subject and it must have come from Wikipedia.....Right.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The post above. A horrific situation. Indefensible. Served his country and starving. " I agree. I wonder where his sister was while he went through this.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's a really sad case...not just because who would let their brother die that way? If his own family didn't know to help him, how would the state know he was in that situation? I'm being kind and assuming that they didn't know; not that they knew and just didn't help. I'd be more horrified with myself than the government if something like that happened to a member of my family. Seriously, where the fuck were they. " Some times personal pride gets on the way. This is probably why so many people get into spiralling debt with wonga loans they are unable to repay. A simple loan, an easy fix that puts you in a ridiculous situation you don't want to admit to, no matter what income you are on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's a really sad case...not just because who would let their brother die that way? If his own family didn't know to help him, how would the state know he was in that situation? I'm being kind and assuming that they didn't know; not that they knew and just didn't help. I'd be more horrified with myself than the government if something like that happened to a member of my family. Seriously, where the fuck were they. " She was the one who found her brothers body. And has campaigned tirelessly since his death, and still is. I wouldn't blame her personally. Some people often hide their problems from those who love them so they don't worry, or they don't like to admit not coping. The state were supporting him then stopped that help. They would have known he had no other source of income coming in. They were the only ones who would have definitely known exactly his financial circumstances. They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Now you cannot just get your money stopped when sanctioned, although it's taken years of campaigning for that to happen even. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not." Sorry. The DWP were in full contact with Mr Clapson. By phone and letter. So while we can all be upset by the story we do need to keep to the facts and events. I have provided the Guardian summary of the case which confirms he WAS contacted and advised about further financial help. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's a really sad case...not just because who would let their brother die that way? If his own family didn't know to help him, how would the state know he was in that situation? I'm being kind and assuming that they didn't know; not that they knew and just didn't help. I'd be more horrified with myself than the government if something like that happened to a member of my family. Seriously, where the fuck were they. Some times personal pride gets on the way. This is probably why so many people get into spiralling debt with wonga loans they are unable to repay. A simple loan, an easy fix that puts you in a ridiculous situation you don't want to admit to, no matter what income you are on. " I agree people often don't let those closest to them know that they're in trouble especially if they live some distance away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"......."I want to know how the Department of Work and Pensions can justify welfare sanctions that are driving people to foodbanks and leading to starvation and death....." I'd like to know too. " So would I if it were the truth. Sanctions are justified and applied when people fail to keep to an agreement they have signed. And as the DWP are paying out taxpayers money they have a duty to them to make sure it is used properly. As for Food Banks lets not forget they started during Labour's term in office when Welfare was being thrown around like confetti. But it is known that late Benefit payments or misspent Benefit payments are the main causes for people to go to a foodbank. So yes this poor man died of diabetes and was clearly starving. But you need to establish where the DWP deliberately caused that to happen or were in any way negligent. Your response will be interesting.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is a seasoned politician so words like 'principled, honest, genuine etc' may fit in well with his performance today however one needs to look at how some of his policies have effected the lives of some of those in society who genuinely have needs that most of us don't have a clue about.. balancing one against the other and his claim that he has only now after 6 years in post decided that its gone too far does not sit well.. Ross Altman has an interesting perspective on it.. David Laws of the Lib dems also has an interesting persepective on it. If you watch todays Andrew Marr show in full on BBC iplayer you will see Marr inter_iew David Laws before he inter_iews IDS. In the inter_iew David Laws talks about the 5 years of coalition government (of which Laws himself was a liberal democrat minister), and reveals that IDS often had to team up with Clegg and the lib dems to rail back against and veto some of the proposed cuts Osbourne and the treasury wanted to force through. People keep going on and on about the last 6 years and IDS record of the last 6 years, but it does not appear to be that simple when you listen to people like David Laws who was on the inside over the 5 years of coalition government, he makes it very clear, it was Osborne who saw the Department for work and Pensions as a cash cow so he could lower his deficit in the treasury, Osborne never being interested in real reform, (while IDS wanted real reform to get people back into work) and Osborne wanting to hit the poor while giving to the rich. All the people attacking IDS on this thread would you prefer IDS did not resign over this and just carried on implementing Osbourne's cuts? What worries me now is that Cameron and Osbourne have appointed a simple "yes" man who will do what ever thay say in Steven Crabb. As John McDonnel tweeted yesterday "The government should look at the policy rather than appoint a "yes" man. Andrew Marr seemed to put it very well when he said it looks like the government are being run by Ant and Dec (Cameron and Osborne), and the rest of the cabinets _iews are being pushed aside and that is why IDS resigned because his voice and his message was not being heard. " I can't believe this day has ever come.... i feel dirty... I actually agree with what centaur has just said..... god i need a shower... lol and as in regards to what Roz Altman has said today, I always got the impression that other than the triple lock which he proposed... he wasn't really that interested in the "pensions" part of the DWP... and the pensions minster had a fairly free reign, so if she was saying she was silenced up to a point, it will be interesting to see what happened with our dept in the next few months and see if she does now become more vocal.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's a really sad case...not just because who would let their brother die that way? If his own family didn't know to help him, how would the state know he was in that situation? I'm being kind and assuming that they didn't know; not that they knew and just didn't help. I'd be more horrified with myself than the government if something like that happened to a member of my family. Seriously, where the fuck were they. She was the one who found her brothers body. And has campaigned tirelessly since his death, and still is. I wouldn't blame her personally. Some people often hide their problems from those who love them so they don't worry, or they don't like to admit not coping. The state were supporting him then stopped that help. They would have known he had no other source of income coming in. They were the only ones who would have definitely known exactly his financial circumstances. They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Now you cannot just get your money stopped when sanctioned, although it's taken years of campaigning for that to happen even." So maybe she's campaigning tirelessly now after his death but I still think something within that family went seriously wrong before his death. I understand pride and all that but if the govenrment are gonna be cAlled out for standing by while someone starves to death then the people in his life should be too. It is not ok to absolve yourself of all responsibility for your family by saying "the govenrment should have looked after him" - yeah they should, but so should she. That poor, poor man. Let down by his family AND the state. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I the only one to have noticed the cunt say "it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us" when talking about the cuts to benefits for the poorest in society he and his mates have steamrollered through. So much for "we are all in this together"!" I think he was referring to David Cameron and George Osbourne when he made those comments on the Andrew Marr show today, that it seems to be Cameron and Osbourne's philosophy that "they don't matter because they don't vote for us", and that was the general direction the government seems to be going in under their leadership which he is opposed to and one of the reasons why he resigned. IDS said on the programme that the Conservative party should be a one nation party for all people, including those who oppose us and those who will never vote for us. "We are all in this together" is Cameron's catchphrase. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Sorry. The DWP were in full contact with Mr Clapson. By phone and letter. So while we can all be upset by the story we do need to keep to the facts and events. I have provided the Guardian summary of the case which confirms he WAS contacted and advised about further financial help." Yeah i've read it. Point is they just stopped his money, knowing he had no other source of income coming in, and this was perfectly legal since 2012 despite there being laws in place saying you are entitled to a certain amount of money to live off each week to stop people from dying of poverty. Stopping peoples money isn't allowed any more, it has been stopped due to public protest and pressurising the system. There's a lot of personal opinions you could use and make up your own mind about the personal stuff anyone else is trying to work out. Because as usual you* are perfect and so is everyone else. *You in general. The ONLY people who knew FOR SURE he would have to live off nothing is the DWP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Sorry. The DWP were in full contact with Mr Clapson. By phone and letter. So while we can all be upset by the story we do need to keep to the facts and events. I have provided the Guardian summary of the case which confirms he WAS contacted and advised about further financial help. Yeah i've read it. Point is they just stopped his money, knowing he had no other source of income coming in, and this was perfectly legal since 2012 despite there being laws in place saying you are entitled to a certain amount of money to live off each week to stop people from dying of poverty. Stopping peoples money isn't allowed any more, it has been stopped due to public protest and pressurising the system. There's a lot of personal opinions you could use and make up your own mind about the personal stuff anyone else is trying to work out. Because as usual you* are perfect and so is everyone else. *You in general. The ONLY people who knew FOR SURE he would have to live off nothing is the DWP." For all they knew he would have family help. Like he should have done. Sorry, I'm not claiming to be polly perfect but I'm from a culture where we look after our own. That they didn't is a contributing factor to why this man died. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Sorry. The DWP were in full contact with Mr Clapson. By phone and letter. So while we can all be upset by the story we do need to keep to the facts and events. I have provided the Guardian summary of the case which confirms he WAS contacted and advised about further financial help. Yeah i've read it. Point is they just stopped his money, knowing he had no other source of income coming in, and this was perfectly legal since 2012 despite there being laws in place saying you are entitled to a certain amount of money to live off each week to stop people from dying of poverty. Stopping peoples money isn't allowed any more, it has been stopped due to public protest and pressurising the system. There's a lot of personal opinions you could use and make up your own mind about the personal stuff anyone else is trying to work out. Because as usual you* are perfect and so is everyone else. *You in general. The ONLY people who knew FOR SURE he would have to live off nothing is the DWP." Back in 2012 it was a coalition government with the Lib dems, so maybe they should take some responsibility too then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Sorry. The DWP were in full contact with Mr Clapson. By phone and letter. So while we can all be upset by the story we do need to keep to the facts and events. I have provided the Guardian summary of the case which confirms he WAS contacted and advised about further financial help. Yeah i've read it. Point is they just stopped his money, knowing he had no other source of income coming in, and this was perfectly legal since 2012 despite there being laws in place saying you are entitled to a certain amount of money to live off each week to stop people from dying of poverty. Stopping peoples money isn't allowed any more, it has been stopped due to public protest and pressurising the system. There's a lot of personal opinions you could use and make up your own mind about the personal stuff anyone else is trying to work out. Because as usual you* are perfect and so is everyone else. *You in general. The ONLY people who knew FOR SURE he would have to live off nothing is the DWP. For all they knew he would have family help. Like he should have done. Sorry, I'm not claiming to be polly perfect but I'm from a culture where we look after our own. That they didn't is a contributing factor to why this man died. " No you're acting like people haven't got pride and don't hide their problems from others. You're acting like people don't get depressed and can cope with everything life throws at them. You're acting like you're psychic and know their family exact circumstances. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KNEW HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SANCTIONED AND STOPPED HIS INCOME, THEY KNEW HE WAS CLAIMING BENEFITS BECAUSE HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. This was the DWP. Let that sink in before you reply again. Here's IDS denying the 2012 sanction changes where you completely stop benefit payments, and saying they will never vote for him. Inoticed some people discussing this above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kEXNGi81Mw Do the right thing chucked in as usual.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Sorry. The DWP were in full contact with Mr Clapson. By phone and letter. So while we can all be upset by the story we do need to keep to the facts and events. I have provided the Guardian summary of the case which confirms he WAS contacted and advised about further financial help. Yeah i've read it. Point is they just stopped his money, knowing he had no other source of income coming in, and this was perfectly legal since 2012 despite there being laws in place saying you are entitled to a certain amount of money to live off each week to stop people from dying of poverty. Stopping peoples money isn't allowed any more, it has been stopped due to public protest and pressurising the system. There's a lot of personal opinions you could use and make up your own mind about the personal stuff anyone else is trying to work out. Because as usual you* are perfect and so is everyone else. *You in general. The ONLY people who knew FOR SURE he would have to live off nothing is the DWP. Back in 2012 it was a coalition government with the Lib dems, so maybe they should take some responsibility too then? " The DWP are responsible for his lack of money, no way they aren't in this case. But IDS brought in those changes to benefit sanctions so they can be applied, which is why he is the one getting taken to court. Legally he is mainly responsible by allowing them to happen, by ensuring they happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if we accept that his payments were stopped because of the rules, it's still not a very humane result, is it? Letting a man starve because he missed an appointment. Doesn't matter if it was his fault or if his family neglected him, the point was that his sole source of income to buy food was the state and they stopped it because of Conservative rules and he starved. That is not what I call a compassionate government. It's a disgusting state of affairs. Reprehensible. " I find myself agreeing with you and Affectionate Bitch on this. I do wonder where his family were but the welfare system is there for people who can't support themselves for whatever reason and in this case it failed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Sorry. The DWP were in full contact with Mr Clapson. By phone and letter. So while we can all be upset by the story we do need to keep to the facts and events. I have provided the Guardian summary of the case which confirms he WAS contacted and advised about further financial help. Yeah i've read it. Point is they just stopped his money, knowing he had no other source of income coming in, and this was perfectly legal since 2012 despite there being laws in place saying you are entitled to a certain amount of money to live off each week to stop people from dying of poverty. Stopping peoples money isn't allowed any more, it has been stopped due to public protest and pressurising the system. There's a lot of personal opinions you could use and make up your own mind about the personal stuff anyone else is trying to work out. Because as usual you* are perfect and so is everyone else. *You in general. The ONLY people who knew FOR SURE he would have to live off nothing is the DWP. For all they knew he would have family help. Like he should have done. Sorry, I'm not claiming to be polly perfect but I'm from a culture where we look after our own. That they didn't is a contributing factor to why this man died. No you're acting like people haven't got pride and don't hide their problems from others. You're acting like people don't get depressed and can cope with everything life throws at them. You're acting like you're psychic and know their family exact circumstances. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KNEW HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SANCTIONED AND STOPPED HIS INCOME, THEY KNEW HE WAS CLAIMING BENEFITS BECAUSE HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. This was the DWP. Let that sink in before you reply again. Here's IDS denying the 2012 sanction changes where you completely stop benefit payments, and saying they will never vote for him. Inoticed some people discussing this above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kEXNGi81Mw Do the right thing chucked in as usual. "There's no need to fucking shout at me. You're claiming you know everything about this family and their circumstances too when you know as much as me. Don't worry I won't reply to you again,, you clearly think it's the govenrments job to care about people when I believe it's a family's job to care about people first and foremost. I know plenty, just because it doesn't match what you think doesn't mean you can post so aggressively towards me. Get over yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I the only one to have noticed the cunt say "it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us" when talking about the cuts to benefits for the poorest in society he and his mates have steamrollered through. So much for "we are all in this together"! I think he was referring to David Cameron and George Osbourne when he made those comments on the Andrew Marr show today, that it seems to be Cameron and Osbourne's philosophy that "they don't matter because they don't vote for us", and that was the general direction the government seems to be going in under their leadership which he is opposed to and one of the reasons why he resigned. IDS said on the programme that the Conservative party should be a one nation party for all people, including those who oppose us and those who will never vote for us. "We are all in this together" is Cameron's catchphrase. " Have you heard of collective responsibility? He has been at the DWP for 6 years, I don't care what he says now, I don't care what the lib dems said when they were in coalition! Talk is cheap! I care about what has been done to the weakest in our society by the whole lot of these fascist pigs. They are all in it together! They think up these cuts they all support these cuts! They all vote for them! If any of them were really against the cuts they have imposed over the last 6 years they would have crossed the chamber floor and voted them down! None of them did! IDS just added insult to injury by putting it into words of one syllable. I just hope that the electorate remember this at the next general election and punish the Tories in the same way they punished the Lib Dems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're supposed to tell you that you can claim hardship payments to keep you tided over until the sanction ends, but they often do not. Sorry. The DWP were in full contact with Mr Clapson. By phone and letter. So while we can all be upset by the story we do need to keep to the facts and events. I have provided the Guardian summary of the case which confirms he WAS contacted and advised about further financial help. Yeah i've read it. Point is they just stopped his money, knowing he had no other source of income coming in, and this was perfectly legal since 2012 despite there being laws in place saying you are entitled to a certain amount of money to live off each week to stop people from dying of poverty. Stopping peoples money isn't allowed any more, it has been stopped due to public protest and pressurising the system. There's a lot of personal opinions you could use and make up your own mind about the personal stuff anyone else is trying to work out. Because as usual you* are perfect and so is everyone else. *You in general. The ONLY people who knew FOR SURE he would have to live off nothing is the DWP. For all they knew he would have family help. Like he should have done. Sorry, I'm not claiming to be polly perfect but I'm from a culture where we look after our own. That they didn't is a contributing factor to why this man died. No you're acting like people haven't got pride and don't hide their problems from others. You're acting like people don't get depressed and can cope with everything life throws at them. You're acting like you're psychic and know their family exact circumstances. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KNEW HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SANCTIONED AND STOPPED HIS INCOME, THEY KNEW HE WAS CLAIMING BENEFITS BECAUSE HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. This was the DWP. Let that sink in before you reply again. Here's IDS denying the 2012 sanction changes where you completely stop benefit payments, and saying they will never vote for him. Inoticed some people discussing this above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kEXNGi81Mw Do the right thing chucked in as usual.
There's no need to fucking shout at me.
You're claiming you know everything about this family and their circumstances too when you know as much as me.
Don't worry I won't reply to you again,, you clearly think it's the govenrments job to care about people when I believe it's a family's job to care about people first and foremost.
I know plenty, just because it doesn't match what you think doesn't mean you can post so aggressively towards me. Get over yourself.
"I've never said anything about this families circumstances or claimed to, although i am more open minded and do know more than i've let on. I just don't agree with what you're saying. I'm not shouting (or swearing either btw) there's no bold codes to use on here, but you were ignoring the facts of what we're talking about. Fact is te only people who knew for certain he would have no other source of income decided it was ok to stop that income. End of. Everything else is insignificant and opinion. I'm good at debating without being a dick actually because you never learn anything through debates by sulking or accusing other people or ignoring facts. I like having the last say so it's ok you're not replying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is a seasoned politician so words like 'principled, honest, genuine etc' may fit in well with his performance today however one needs to look at how some of his policies have effected the lives of some of those in society who genuinely have needs that most of us don't have a clue about.. balancing one against the other and his claim that he has only now after 6 years in post decided that its gone too far does not sit well.. Ross Altman has an interesting perspective on it.. David Laws of the Lib dems also has an interesting persepective on it. If you watch todays Andrew Marr show in full on BBC iplayer you will see Marr inter_iew David Laws before he inter_iews IDS. In the inter_iew David Laws talks about the 5 years of coalition government (of which Laws himself was a liberal democrat minister), and reveals that IDS often had to team up with Clegg and the lib dems to rail back against and veto some of the proposed cuts Osbourne and the treasury wanted to force through. People keep going on and on about the last 6 years and IDS record of the last 6 years, but it does not appear to be that simple when you listen to people like David Laws who was on the inside over the 5 years of coalition government, he makes it very clear, it was Osborne who saw the Department for work and Pensions as a cash cow so he could lower his deficit in the treasury, Osborne never being interested in real reform, (while IDS wanted real reform to get people back into work) and Osborne wanting to hit the poor while giving to the rich. All the people attacking IDS on this thread would you prefer IDS did not resign over this and just carried on implementing Osbourne's cuts? What worries me now is that Cameron and Osbourne have appointed a simple "yes" man who will do what ever thay say in Steven Crabb. As John McDonnel tweeted yesterday "The government should look at the policy rather than appoint a "yes" man. Andrew Marr seemed to put it very well when he said it looks like the government are being run by Ant and Dec (Cameron and Osborne), and the rest of the cabinets _iews are being pushed aside and that is why IDS resigned because his voice and his message was not being heard. " not seen the David Laws comments so wont comment on his _iews, but will say that yes the Treasury calls the shots and someone implements them in this case IDS and therefore he is bound to be the subject of people's scrutiny.. and his new found caring empathy is hollow and shameful.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "Am I the only one to have noticed the cunt say "it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us" when talking about the cuts to benefits for the poorest in society he and his mates have steamrollered through." I find it very sad that people a) have to call people 'cunts' and b) take a very selected piece of what was said in a very long and detailed inter_iew and misrepresent what was actually said. IDS was actually making the point (quite the opposite of what you infer) that he believed the Conservatives particularly should care for, had a duty to care for, everyone regardless of who votes for them. The political reality being that Labour for all their failures are seen as caring for the poor (when they didn't) and the Tories are the nasty boys regardless of what they achieve. But then we have seen you do this selective quoting thing before and when challenged fail to answer. I have always found that when people have to fabricate evidence for an argument their case is basically weak. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and his new found caring empathy is hollow and shameful.." Except it is neither new found, hollow or shameful. I have detailed earlier his ideas to research and understand the dynamics of poverty when he formed, at his own cost, The Centre for Social Justice. He funded that for 8 years while he was out of public office. He then used THAT research and ideas it created to formulate a better way to get people back to work and therefore off the Welfare treadmill. The man is genuinely concerned in how those less able and disadvantaged are lost in a society. he also had to bring new ideas in while under huge budget constraints due to the Labour economic failures. OK maybe he didn't get it all right but as I have said given his achievements as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in getting more people back to work than ever before; the huge number of young, disabled and long term unemployed who now have the pride and self respect of a wage for their families; and the way the Pensioners have been advanced and protected in radical ways says more about the man. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you think he'll run for leader again?" There has never been an ex leader that has then run again after being kicked out. He genuinely does not have any political ambition left for himself....it is simply the truth. Good old Gideon Osbourne has been shafting us all....and pushing the blame onto other ministers for years! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if we accept that his payments were stopped because of the rules, it's still not a very humane result, is it? Letting a man starve because he missed an appointment. Doesn't matter if it was his fault or if his family neglected him, the point was that his sole source of income to buy food was the state and they stopped it because of Conservative rules and he starved. That is not what I call a compassionate government. It's a disgusting state of affairs. Reprehensible. I find myself agreeing with you and Affectionate Bitch on this. I do wonder where his family were but the welfare system is there for people who can't support themselves for whatever reason and in this case it failed." Failed by a policy designed by the Conservatives, one result of which, be that deliberate or not, was to starve a man. Rather a harsh result for missing an appointment as was so smugly pointed out earlier, I think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even if we accept that his payments were stopped because of the rules, it's still not a very humane result, is it? Letting a man starve because he missed an appointment. Doesn't matter if it was his fault or if his family neglected him, the point was that his sole source of income to buy food was the state and they stopped it because of Conservative rules and he starved. That is not what I call a compassionate government. It's a disgusting state of affairs. Reprehensible. " Why do you keep repeating the falsehood the DWP 'let a man starve because he missed an appointment'. They didn't and I have shown links and facts to show otherwise. He missed TWO appointments. The truth is that the DWP made it clear to the poor man he had a way of getting money and help and they phoned him to tell him how to do that and wrote to him with the forms. For whatever reason he chose not to do that. But I guess the truth doesn't fit with your hatred of all things Tory and this story is one you can manipulate and exploit mercilessly to that end. And here is a thought for you: In every unexplained death the Police investigate. The tragic events took place in July 2013 and to date no charges have been brought against anybody. Clearly the cause of death was the diabetes as declared by the Coroner following Medical Examination. However if someone had failed to do something or caused unintentionally something to happen then the Police would have brought Manslaughter charges. They didn't and have not to date nearly 3 years later. And where were those family members who are now so concerned? Where were THEY for those critical two weeks when he was clearly in a very poor state of mind? No its easier to blame someone else especially if its a Tory Minister.... to people like you it is always someone else's fault. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Don't usually bother with your Tory party propaganda, because it's so obviously cherry-picked but to say that Universal Credit is seen as "a step forward by those on it" is so utterly laughable that it shows how divorced from those people you are. Oh dear... why have a factual discussion when some personal digs can be made? You do not have a bloody CLUE what I do or do not know about Universal Credit. You assume because I am a Tory I really can't know. Because only Labour people really know? Yeah Right. As of the middle of 2015 175,000 people had made a claim on Universal Credit. Government figures showed that "Universal Credit claimants find work quicker, stay in work longer and earn more than the Job Seekers’ Allowance claimants". The total JSA claimant count in the UK is 760,000 people (representing 2.2% of the working-age population) and equates to over 20% of JSA claimants. As of September 2015 Universal Credit was available in over half of job centres across Great Britain and will be available in all Job Centres early 2016. (I do not have the latest numbers). Oh and that quote in there about satisfaction? Sebastian Payne (7 September 2015). "Labour defaults to Universal Credit attack at welfare questions". The Spectator (blogs). Care to give us some factual analysis of why Universal Credit is NOT well received? Well apart from not being enough money of course...." I can give you plenty of personal anecdotes from the people I work with every day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Failed by a policy designed by the Conservatives, one result of which, be that deliberate or not, was to starve a man. Rather a harsh result for missing an appointment as was so smugly pointed out earlier, I think. " And the lies keep coming ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can give you plenty of personal anecdotes from the people I work with every day. " Well please do then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "Am I the only one to have noticed the cunt say "it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us" when talking about the cuts to benefits for the poorest in society he and his mates have steamrollered through. I find it very sad that people a) have to call people 'cunts' and b) take a very selected piece of what was said in a very long and detailed inter_iew and misrepresent what was actually said. IDS was actually making the point (quite the opposite of what you infer) that he believed the Conservatives particularly should care for, had a duty to care for, everyone regardless of who votes for them. The political reality being that Labour for all their failures are seen as caring for the poor (when they didn't) and the Tories are the nasty boys regardless of what they achieve. But then we have seen you do this selective quoting thing before and when challenged fail to answer. I have always found that when people have to fabricate evidence for an argument their case is basically weak." Good arguments by Chalk and well put!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "Am I the only one to have noticed the cunt say "it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us" when talking about the cuts to benefits for the poorest in society he and his mates have steamrollered through. I find it very sad that people a) have to call people 'cunts' and b) take a very selected piece of what was said in a very long and detailed inter_iew and misrepresent what was actually said. IDS was actually making the point (quite the opposite of what you infer) that he believed the Conservatives particularly should care for, had a duty to care for, everyone regardless of who votes for them. The political reality being that Labour for all their failures are seen as caring for the poor (when they didn't) and the Tories are the nasty boys regardless of what they achieve. But then we have seen you do this selective quoting thing before and when challenged fail to answer. I have always found that when people have to fabricate evidence for an argument their case is basically weak. Good arguments by Chalk and well put!! "I agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Don't usually bother with your Tory party propaganda, because it's so obviously cherry-picked but to say that Universal Credit is seen as "a step forward by those on it" is so utterly laughable that it shows how divorced from those people you are. Oh dear... why have a factual discussion when some personal digs can be made? You do not have a bloody CLUE what I do or do not know about Universal Credit. You assume because I am a Tory I really can't know. Because only Labour people really know? Yeah Right. As of the middle of 2015 175,000 people had made a claim on Universal Credit. Government figures showed that "Universal Credit claimants find work quicker, stay in work longer and earn more than the Job Seekers’ Allowance claimants". The total JSA claimant count in the UK is 760,000 people (representing 2.2% of the working-age population) and equates to over 20% of JSA claimants. As of September 2015 Universal Credit was available in over half of job centres across Great Britain and will be available in all Job Centres early 2016. (I do not have the latest numbers). Oh and that quote in there about satisfaction? Sebastian Payne (7 September 2015). "Labour defaults to Universal Credit attack at welfare questions". The Spectator (blogs). Care to give us some factual analysis of why Universal Credit is NOT well received? Well apart from not being enough money of course...." I can give you plenty of personal anecdotes from the people I work with every day. That's all I have though - personal, objective experience of how these policies have effected people - plenty of good, honest people - on the ground. That doesn't compare with good old-fashioned diatribe though. To be honest, I can almost swallow the "Poor, principled IDS fighting for good against the evil Osborne" bullshit, but only because of the havoc it is reaping upon this divisive, intolerant, incompetent government. Oh, for an effective opposition right now  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah.....he missed TWO appointments. That makes a huge difference. Not. "Well yes it does its called factual accuracy in a debate. And you also quietly forget to mention, because it suits your politics and as has been proved, that the DWP actually phoned the man to explain how to get more money while the sanction lasted (it was not permanent) and sent the forms for him to do that. Why he didn't we will never know but again I ask where were his family to help him fill the forms to get the money he needed? So you keep peddling the lie backed up by selective quotes, the Tories deliberately set up rules to kill people.... and you are a liar for doing that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can give you plenty of personal anecdotes from the people I work with every day. That's all I have though - personal, objective experience of how these policies have effected people - plenty of good, honest people - on the ground." But provide none. Which is fine and I am sure you mean well. But when you decry something as untrue then its really on you to disprove the alleged untruth. Can I repeat the facts I gave earlier? "Basic Universal Credit (UC): Single claimant aged under 25: £251.77 per month Single claimant aged 25 or over: £317.82 per month Joint claimants both aged under 25: £395.20 per month Joint claimants either aged 25 or over: £498.89 per month All of which is a bit more than the sums quoted earlier that people had to live on. And then there are these added payments: Child element Childcare costs element Limited capability for work element Carer element Housing costs element All of which are calculated together. The 'Welfare Cap' applies to UC and is as follows: £2167 per month for a couple or a lone parent £1517 per month for a single person with no children (For the record I manage on about £1100 per month from early pension and other income. And no I do not claim any Benefits.) UC means people are more aware of what they can claim, it is a simpler application and it means more for those who need it. Those are the simple facts. And anyone can check the numbers out on a terrific independent website (the address of which I am not allowed to pass on) but its name is 'Turn2us'. There is a built in calculator so don't take the word of this vehement Tory... "Now if I can manage on a lot less than the amount capped by Universal Credit then I am sorry I am not convinced its a bad deal or people are being treated badly. OK I don't have Sky TV or smoke or drink beer. I also cook wisely and well. I run a car and do my own repairs. Oh and yes I live in rented accommodation. Sorry no rich Tory Toffs hereabouts....
Now that is MY very personal anecdote ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh, for an effective opposition right now " Well as long as Labour stay in Opposition we will all be OK. They crashed the family car and now want the keys of the new one... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah.....he missed TWO appointments. That makes a huge difference. Not.
Well yes it does its called factual accuracy in a debate. And you also quietly forget to mention, because it suits your politics and as has been proved, that the DWP actually phoned the man to explain how to get more money while the sanction lasted (it was not permanent) and sent the forms for him to do that. Why he didn't we will never know but again I ask where were his family to help him fill the forms to get the money he needed?
So you keep peddling the lie backed up by selective quotes, the Tories deliberately set up rules to kill people.... and you are a liar for doing that."I'ma stickler for facts but i agree with Steve that it doesn't really matter how many appointments he missed, or why. He starved to death. Someone thought it was ok to ensure he had nothing to live off and applied that reasoning to his life and circumstances. But he did only miss an appointment when it was stopped this time. An means that appointment there at the time of discussion, not necessarily any number of appointments. Doesn't matter that he could reapply for lesser benefits, they weren't going to be paid to him as soon as he applied either, and what was he supposed to do while waiting for those benefits to be paid? You can debate all the moot points you want but it's really not acceptable to starve anyone to death (or make them want to, feel they have to), it's not acceptable to make someone who is struggling struggle more if they don't have to, and it's not acceptable to make suffering, struggling, and to worsen lives with laws. That's what we're saying. And nobody will ever justify to me that it is ok, not even with facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh, for an effective opposition right now Well as long as Labour stay in Opposition we will all be OK. They crashed the family car and now want the keys of the new one... "How much do the Daily Mail pay you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bloke was behind all the reforms that have taken money from the poor and disabled. And now none of it was his fault. Yeah right." Only one slight problem with this argument. The Conservatives are spending more in real terms that the Labour Budget of 42 bilion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bloke was behind all the reforms that have taken money from the poor and disabled. And now none of it was his fault. Yeah right." Only one slight problem with this argument. The Conservatives are spending more in real terms that the Labour Budget of 42 bilion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You say: I can give you plenty of personal anecdotes from the people I work with every day. That's all I have though - personal, objective experience of how these policies have effected people - plenty of good, honest people - on the ground. But provide none. Which is fine and I am sure you mean well. But when you decry something as untrue then its really on you to disprove the alleged untruth. Can I repeat the facts I gave earlier? Basic Universal Credit (UC): Single claimant aged under 25: £251.77 per month Single claimant aged 25 or over: £317.82 per month Joint claimants both aged under 25: £395.20 per month Joint claimants either aged 25 or over: £498.89 per month All of which is a bit more than the sums quoted earlier that people had to live on. And then there are these added payments: Child element Childcare costs element Limited capability for work element Carer element Housing costs element All of which are calculated together. The 'Welfare Cap' applies to UC and is as follows: £2167 per month for a couple or a lone parent £1517 per month for a single person with no children (For the record I manage on about £1100 per month from early pension and other income. And no I do not claim any Benefits.) UC means people are more aware of what they can claim, it is a simpler application and it means more for those who need it. Those are the simple facts. And anyone can check the numbers out on a terrific independent website (the address of which I am not allowed to pass on) but its name is 'Turn2us'. There is a built in calculator so don't take the word of this vehement Tory...
Now if I can manage on a lot less than the amount capped by Universal Credit then I am sorry I am not convinced its a bad deal or people are being treated badly. OK I don't have Sky TV or smoke or drink beer. I also cook wisely and well. I run a car and do my own repairs. Oh and yes I live in rented accommodation. Sorry no rich Tory Toffs hereabouts....
Now that is MY very personal anecdote ..."A good well written based on facts and it is good to some a more accurate assessment of the situation. I provide extensive assistance to a disabled person and cannot see any evidence of cuts , just better control of future expenditure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah.....he missed TWO appointments. That makes a huge difference. Not.
Well yes it does its called factual accuracy in a debate. And you also quietly forget to mention, because it suits your politics and as has been proved, that the DWP actually phoned the man to explain how to get more money while the sanction lasted (it was not permanent) and sent the forms for him to do that. Why he didn't we will never know but again I ask where were his family to help him fill the forms to get the money he needed?
So you keep peddling the lie backed up by selective quotes, the Tories deliberately set up rules to kill people.... and you are a liar for doing that.
I'ma stickler for facts but i agree with Steve that it doesn't really matter how many appointments he missed, or why.
He starved to death. Someone thought it was ok to ensure he had nothing to live off and applied that reasoning to his life and circumstances.
But he did only miss an appointment when it was stopped this time. An means that appointment there at the time of discussion, not necessarily any number of appointments.
Doesn't matter that he could reapply for lesser benefits, they weren't going to be paid to him as soon as he applied either, and what was he supposed to do while waiting for those benefits to be paid?
You can debate all the moot points you want but it's really not acceptable to starve anyone to death (or make them want to, feel they have to), it's not acceptable to make someone who is struggling struggle more if they don't have to, and it's not acceptable to make suffering, struggling, and to worsen lives with laws. That's what we're saying. And nobody will ever justify to me that it is ok, not even with facts."With respect that is not what happened. It IS important how many appointments were missed. It IS important that he was contacted to give help to get more money. It IS important that no one INTENDED the man to die. The Jobseekers website says and I quote: "You can ask Jobcentre Plus to reconsider the decision to stop payment. If they do not change their decision, you can appeal to the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal. You should continue with any JSA claim until the dispute is settled." Where is the intention to kill someone if there is an Appeal procedure? To say otherwise is just not true. Emotions are all well and good but to change the facts and then create a falsehood to blame someone who was not to blame is pretty poor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and his new found caring empathy is hollow and shameful.. Except it is neither new found, hollow or shameful. I have detailed earlier his ideas to research and understand the dynamics of poverty when he formed, at his own cost, The Centre for Social Justice. He funded that for 8 years while he was out of public office. He then used THAT research and ideas it created to formulate a better way to get people back to work and therefore off the Welfare treadmill. The man is genuinely concerned in how those less able and disadvantaged are lost in a society. he also had to bring new ideas in while under huge budget constraints due to the Labour economic failures. OK maybe he didn't get it all right but as I have said given his achievements as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in getting more people back to work than ever before; the huge number of young, disabled and long term unemployed who now have the pride and self respect of a wage for their families; and the way the Pensioners have been advanced and protected in radical ways says more about the man. " You are obviously an intelligent and educated person and you also appear to have an interest in politics that goes far beyond mine. However...your rabid defence of any aspect of Tory policy/ideology weakens whatever argument you put forward. I'm simply not interested in listening to regurgitated spin. Yesterday you posted about the rise in personal tax allowances, and claimed basic rate taxpayers were £900 a year better off because of these changes. In fact they are only 20% of £900 better off - £180. Better than nothing I agree, but a far cry from £900. I suspect that you knew this, but £900 sounds much better. In _iew of your vehement support of the Conservatives, and your massaging of statistics, I no longer have any interest in anything you post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You say: I can give you plenty of personal anecdotes from the people I work with every day. That's all I have though - personal, objective experience of how these policies have effected people - plenty of good, honest people - on the ground. But provide none. Which is fine and I am sure you mean well. But when you decry something as untrue then its really on you to disprove the alleged untruth. Can I repeat the facts I gave earlier? Basic Universal Credit (UC): Single claimant aged under 25: £251.77 per month Single claimant aged 25 or over: £317.82 per month Joint claimants both aged under 25: £395.20 per month Joint claimants either aged 25 or over: £498.89 per month All of which is a bit more than the sums quoted earlier that people had to live on. And then there are these added payments: Child element Childcare costs element Limited capability for work element Carer element Housing costs element All of which are calculated together. The 'Welfare Cap' applies to UC and is as follows: £2167 per month for a couple or a lone parent £1517 per month for a single person with no children (For the record I manage on about £1100 per month from early pension and other income. And no I do not claim any Benefits.) UC means people are more aware of what they can claim, it is a simpler application and it means more for those who need it. Those are the simple facts. And anyone can check the numbers out on a terrific independent website (the address of which I am not allowed to pass on) but its name is 'Turn2us'. There is a built in calculator so don't take the word of this vehement Tory...
Now if I can manage on a lot less than the amount capped by Universal Credit then I am sorry I am not convinced its a bad deal or people are being treated badly. OK I don't have Sky TV or smoke or drink beer. I also cook wisely and well. I run a car and do my own repairs. Oh and yes I live in rented accommodation. Sorry no rich Tory Toffs hereabouts....
Now that is MY very personal anecdote ..."That is all very well. I'm pleased you are able to manage, and never had you down for a toff. You do, however, suffer from the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude - an inability, if you will, to walk in other's shoes. If you are doing ok, then others must be living dissolute lifestyles? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are obviously an intelligent and educated person and you also appear to have an interest in politics that goes far beyond mine. However...your rabid defence of any aspect of Tory policy/ideology weakens whatever argument Yesterday you posted about the rise in personal tax allowances, and claimed basic rate taxpayers were £900 a year better off because of these changes. In fact they are only 20% of £900 better off - £180. Better than nothing I agree, but a far cry from £900. I suspect that you knew this, but £900 sounds much better." Well thanks for calling me rabid ... Should I bark and be afraid of water? Oh and the 'vehement Tory' jibe... Hmmm... so its Ok to be a Labour supporter and call shit down on everything Tory but when a Tory stands up and calls out the lies and bullshit we are 'rabid' and vehement'... At least I don't call anyone of the Labour persuasion a bunch of 'cunts' like many call us Tories on here... Still same shit different day. And your mathematics stink. The personal allowance tax threshold will rise from £10,600 currently (and £11,000, as planned, from 6 April 2016) to £11,500 on 6 April 2017. The typical basic-rate taxpayer will pay £1,000 less in tax each year than they did in 2010/11, when the personal allowance was £6,475. Plus he has also given substantial (44%) reductions in in Capital Gains Tax for basic rate taxpayers. Something your Labour Leftie mates keep forgetting to mention. Now when I went to school 11,500 minus 10,600 was 900. Maybe in Labour controlled schools it is indeed 140.... Which might explain a lot  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With respect that is not what happened. It IS important how many appointments were missed. It IS important that he was contacted to give help to get more money. It IS important that no one INTENDED the man to die. The Jobseekers website says and I quote: "You can ask Jobcentre Plus to reconsider the decision to stop payment. If they do not change their decision, you can appeal to the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal. You should continue with any JSA claim until the dispute is settled." Where is the intention to kill someone if there is an Appeal procedure? To say otherwise is just not true. Emotions are all well and good but to change the facts and then create a falsehood to blame someone who was not to blame is pretty poor." Stopping his money, knowing he had no other source of income, is ensuring he had no income at all. Whether they intended to kill him is debatable, and i don't care to debate opinion bh. Fact is they ensured he had nothing to live on in a society where you need money. That's non-debatable, they are responsible for that. Offering help that will come later when you need something now is pointless, even the courts will agree. And the law on stopping money when sanctioned has been changed since these deaths and public pressure was put on politicians to change that law. Can i also add that the article you provided does mention that you didn't used to get told you're sanctioned: "They don't tell you that you've been sanctioned. You go to the post office and find out that there is no money. Then you think there must have been some computer error, so you get on the phone, but you can't get through to talk to local people. You haven't got a clue who you're talking to. The calls aren't free, so after a while you can't afford to make any more."" Also that Clapson had not eaten for weeks before he died according to the coroner. Officials wrote to him on June 28 saying his Jobseeker’s Allowance would be stopped from July 12 until August 8. A last payment of £122.10 went in to his account on July 2. (This wasn't in your article, this is my own info, freely available on the internet). So weeks after being told, on the 28th of June, that he would get no money from July the 2nd he then got told he could claim hardship payments on July the 16th. 3 weeks later he got told he could claim that. He died on the 20th of July of starvation 4 days after being told he could claim hardship payments. and the coroner said he hadn't eaten for weeks previously. There's your actual facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are obviously an intelligent and educated person and you also appear to have an interest in politics that goes far beyond mine. However...your rabid defence of any aspect of Tory policy/ideology weakens whatever argument Yesterday you posted about the rise in personal tax allowances, and claimed basic rate taxpayers were £900 a year better off because of these changes. In fact they are only 20% of £900 better off - £180. Better than nothing I agree, but a far cry from £900. I suspect that you knew this, but £900 sounds much better. Well thanks for calling me rabid ... Should I bark and be afraid of water? Oh and the 'vehement Tory' jibe... Hmmm... so its Ok to be a Labour supporter and call shit down on everything Tory but when a Tory stands up and calls out the lies and bullshit we are 'rabid' and vehement'... At least I don't call anyone of the Labour persuasion a bunch of 'cunts' like many call us Tories on here... Still same shit different day. And your mathematics stink. The personal allowance tax threshold will rise from £10,600 currently (and £11,000, as planned, from 6 April 2016) to £11,500 on 6 April 2017. The typical basic-rate taxpayer will pay £1,000 less in tax each year than they did in 2010/11, when the personal allowance was £6,475. Plus he has also given substantial (44%) reductions in in Capital Gains Tax for basic rate taxpayers. Something your Labour Leftie mates keep forgetting to mention. Now when I went to school 11,500 minus 10,600 was 900. Maybe in Labour controlled schools it is indeed 140.... Which might explain a lot "Im sorry but the the 140 or 180 which ever it is is correct..... Yes you don't pay tax on the £900 but you are not better off by £900. You would only pay around the £140/80 a year in tax on £900, so the poster is quite right to call you out on this. It's basic pay scales..... It they increase you tax limit you are not better off by the amount of rise, only by the amount of tax you pay on that rise.... I am not having a go at any Tory supporters here, but this is one thing the Tories are very good at, giving the facts in a very misleading way so people either think they are better off than they are or not as hard up ..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are obviously an intelligent and educated person and you also appear to have an interest in politics that goes far beyond mine. However...your rabid defence of any aspect of Tory policy/ideology weakens whatever argument Yesterday you posted about the rise in personal tax allowances, and claimed basic rate taxpayers were £900 a year better off because of these changes. In fact they are only 20% of £900 better off - £180. Better than nothing I agree, but a far cry from £900. I suspect that you knew this, but £900 sounds much better. Well thanks for calling me rabid ... Should I bark and be afraid of water? Oh and the 'vehement Tory' jibe... Hmmm... so its Ok to be a Labour supporter and call shit down on everything Tory but when a Tory stands up and calls out the lies and bullshit we are 'rabid' and vehement'... At least I don't call anyone of the Labour persuasion a bunch of 'cunts' like many call us Tories on here... Still same shit different day. And your mathematics stink. The personal allowance tax threshold will rise from £10,600 currently (and £11,000, as planned, from 6 April 2016) to £11,500 on 6 April 2017. The typical basic-rate taxpayer will pay £1,000 less in tax each year than they did in 2010/11, when the personal allowance was £6,475. Plus he has also given substantial (44%) reductions in in Capital Gains Tax for basic rate taxpayers. Something your Labour Leftie mates keep forgetting to mention. Now when I went to school 11,500 minus 10,600 was 900. Maybe in Labour controlled schools it is indeed 140.... Which might explain a lot "I've changed my mind, you're not intelligent, just a know all. More spin I see. You didn't even mention 2010/11 in the post I was referring to. Now you've done your research and returned with another batch of carefully spun figures. How sad. I'm not interested! Carry on with the insults, I'm sure they make you feel very big. They're not doing you any favours though, we can all see what you are now. Night night. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"read Nadine Dories tweets about him begging her not to vote against the ESA cuts as the bill was all his work and how he didn't want her vote against to cause it to fail as its was to be HIS legacy utter piece of lying duplicitous filth in my eyes his resignation is all about post brexit vote and fuck all to do with his concience" This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I the only one to have noticed the cunt say "it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us" when talking about the cuts to benefits for the poorest in society he and his mates have steamrollered through. So much for "we are all in this together"! I think he was referring to David Cameron and George Osbourne when he made those comments on the Andrew Marr show today, that it seems to be Cameron and Osbourne's philosophy that "they don't matter because they don't vote for us", and that was the general direction the government seems to be going in under their leadership which he is opposed to and one of the reasons why he resigned. IDS said on the programme that the Conservative party should be a one nation party for all people, including those who oppose us and those who will never vote for us. "We are all in this together" is Cameron's catchphrase. Have you heard of collective responsibility? He has been at the DWP for 6 years, I don't care what he says now, I don't care what the lib dems said when they were in coalition! Talk is cheap! I care about what has been done to the weakest in our society by the whole lot of these fascist pigs. They are all in it together! They think up these cuts they all support these cuts! They all vote for them! If any of them were really against the cuts they have imposed over the last 6 years they would have crossed the chamber floor and voted them down! None of them did! IDS just added insult to injury by putting it into words of one syllable. I just hope that the electorate remember this at the next general election and punish the Tories in the same way they punished the Lib Dems." . What. cuts are you referring to?. This year the government is spending £50 bullion supporting sick and disabled people , compared to the £42.6 billion that Labour was spending . I don't consider those to be cuts . The number of people who qualify for PIP solely due to aids and appliances for PIP trebled in 18 months , yet in 96 % of the cases re_iewed by health professionals , they found that the likely on going extra costs of daily living due to their disability was low or even zero. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm just glad he dropped Osborne and Cameron in the shit. "And there we have it in a nutshell. It isn't about post brexit, it is about brexit. The brexiters have to play the man not the ball because any focus on actual policy details exposes their lack of any substance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair, and no matter what I may think of some of his policies, he sounded genuine and gave the best speech I have ever heard from him."
When the quiet man speaks, he is heard loud and clear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"read Nadine Dories tweets about him begging her not to vote against the ESA cuts as the bill was all his work and how he didn't want her vote against to cause it to fail as its was to be HIS legacy utter piece of lying duplicitous filth in my eyes his resignation is all about post brexit vote and fuck all to do with his concience This "With her record for lying why would anyone ever believe a word Nadine Dorries says? One of the most obnoxious politicians from any political party. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I the only one to have noticed the cunt say "it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us" when talking about the cuts to benefits for the poorest in society he and his mates have steamrollered through. So much for "we are all in this together"!" Talk about mis quoting! What he actually said is "we can't just say 'it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us'" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Iplayer hasn't uploaded The Andrew Marr show. Seeing that they've uploaded all the other news/current affairs programmes promptly, I'm not happy with that. At all. "Isn't that strange? Considering I watched it on the Iplayer yesterday I find that hard to believe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I the only one to have noticed the cunt say "it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us" when talking about the cuts to benefits for the poorest in society he and his mates have steamrollered through. So much for "we are all in this together"! Talk about mis quoting! What he actually said is "we can't just say 'it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us'"" I think he's quoting the general Conservative mantra rather than one individual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nope. Not on my sky box. I'm gonna try on the laptop now. Thanks for letting me know it's on Iplayer in one form or another."
Probably says more about sky tbh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can we get on with this,,,,,, I'm hoping to get the last word in before I go AWOL.... "Not happening  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nope. Not on my sky box. I'm gonna try on the laptop now. Thanks for letting me know it's on Iplayer in one form or another.
Probably says more about sky tbh"I think you may be right on that one.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what happened to chalk? has he rage quit fabswingers again lol?" shame, hardly anyone is alright at debating without getting offended/offensive. he seemed a bit butt hurt about being called names. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what happened to chalk? has he rage quit fabswingers again lol? shame, hardly anyone is alright at debating without getting offended/offensive. he seemed a bit butt hurt about being called names. " I always feel forums becomes a much less interesting place when passionate people leave ........ The people who can't engage in debate without resorting to personalised insults are the people with least to say and their value as a source of entertainment is limited to the type amusement that only cracks a wry smirk of derision on this guys face... ..... Oo'er..... listen to me being all high and mighty.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what happened to chalk? has he rage quit fabswingers again lol? shame, hardly anyone is alright at debating without getting offended/offensive. he seemed a bit butt hurt about being called names. I always feel forums becomes a much less interesting place when passionate people leave ........ The people who can't engage in debate without resorting to personalised insults are the people with least to say and their value as a source of entertainment is limited to the type amusement that only cracks a wry smirk of derision on this guys face... ..... Oo'er..... listen to me being all high and mighty.... "You should have used ad hominem for further effect.
I know what you mean though, the debate then turns into a personal argument and ends up a mess.
I'm never leaving, i enjoying being a pitbull when it comes to debating. I do look for other debate sites though, the one i used to use all the best people got banned for never backing down and pissing off the site owner that way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what happened to chalk? has he rage quit fabswingers again lol? shame, hardly anyone is alright at debating without getting offended/offensive. he seemed a bit butt hurt about being called names. I always feel forums becomes a much less interesting place when passionate people leave ........ The people who can't engage in debate without resorting to personalised insults are the people with least to say and their value as a source of entertainment is limited to the type amusement that only cracks a wry smirk of derision on this guys face... ..... Oo'er..... listen to me being all high and mighty....
You should have used ad hominem for further effect.
I know what you mean though, the debate then turns into a personal argument and ends up a mess.
I'm never leaving, i enjoying being a pitbull when it comes to debating. I do look for other debate sites though, the one i used to use all the best people got banned for never backing down and pissing off the site owner that way."Yep...... I look back with great fondness at some of the most argumentative cantankerous down-right obstinate posters that ever graced this place but who have now moved on to spew their special blend putrid bile in another parts of cyberspace ...... Happy dayz..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what happened to chalk? has he rage quit fabswingers again lol? shame, hardly anyone is alright at debating without getting offended/offensive. he seemed a bit butt hurt about being called names. I always feel forums becomes a much less interesting place when passionate people leave ........ The people who can't engage in debate without resorting to personalised insults are the people with least to say and their value as a source of entertainment is limited to the type amusement that only cracks a wry smirk of derision on this guys face... ..... Oo'er..... listen to me being all high and mighty....
You should have used ad hominem for further effect.
I know what you mean though, the debate then turns into a personal argument and ends up a mess.
I'm never leaving, i enjoying being a pitbull when it comes to debating. I do look for other debate sites though, the one i used to use all the best people got banned for never backing down and pissing off the site owner that way.
Yep...... I look back with great fondness at some of the most argumentative cantankerous down-right obstinate posters that ever graced this place but who have now moved on to spew their special blend putrid bile in another parts of cyberspace ......
Happy dayz..... "Aw, i learned a lot from the people i'm talking about. 
I like how they challenge your head, although i've not got much head left now. This site encourages me to switch off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"what happened to chalk? has he rage quit fabswingers again lol?" ran out of fuckbuddies to call in to try and do down those with opposing _iews..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people have real lives outside of fab" Do they!? I'm thinking of getting one myself but they seem awfully time consuming  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people have real lives outside of fab Do they!? I'm thinking of getting one myself but they seem awfully time consuming "i want one, not sure how to get one though and struggling to find the entusiasm need to go outside also... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people have real lives outside of fab" ironic huh..
actually in the real world of mobile modern communications, can people not have a real life including fab (and other interwebby stuff)..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people have real lives outside of fab Do they!? I'm thinking of getting one myself but they seem awfully time consuming
i want one, not sure how to get one though and struggling to find the entusiasm need to go outside also..."You sound a bit low, everything ok? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people have real lives outside of fab ironic huh..
actually in the real world of mobile modern communications, can people not have a real life including fab (and other interwebby stuff)..? "All lives are real, it's just that some consider theirs more real than others | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people have real lives outside of fab ironic huh..
actually in the real world of mobile modern communications, can people not have a real life including fab (and other interwebby stuff)..?
All lives are real, it's just that some consider theirs more real than others "very true, the irony of stating it whilst being on it oneself or referring to others being in the real world where one has this real life.. well its often ironic.. i think.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"what happened to chalk? has he rage quit fabswingers again lol?" Perhaps he didn't like being called out on his bullshit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people have real lives outside of fab Do they!? I'm thinking of getting one myself but they seem awfully time consuming
i want one, not sure how to get one though and struggling to find the entusiasm need to go outside also...
You sound a bit low, everything ok? "yeah i'm fine, i like whinging also. just got no sense of identity any more after having kids. i've been mum for a long time now, they don't need a mum much now and it's time for me to be me again, no idea who i am. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
