Poor Russell Brand

[anonymous-user]

TTwiggy said:

Are you suggesting that if we make kids suffer for a simple accident of birth, then it will incentivise them to work harder in life? Sort of 'survival of the fittest' if you will? Do you want to explain the situation to every pre-schooler personally?

How do you get the genie back in the lamp? The problem is state largesse toward feckless idiots having children encourages generations of feckless idiots, at the same time, pulling the plug on them now punishes the children for having hopeless parents, as if that wern't punishment enough. You have to phase it out surely? The current situation where kids can grow up not knowing an adult with a job is hardly sustainable or healthy.

[TTwiggy]

fblm said:

TTwiggy said:

Are you suggesting that if we make kids suffer for a simple accident of birth, then it will incentivise them to work harder in life? Sort of 'survival of the fittest' if you will? Do you want to explain the situation to every pre-schooler personally?

How do you get the genie back in the lamp? The problem is state largesse toward feckless idiots having children encourages generations of feckless idiots, at the same time, pulling the plug on them now punishes the children for having hopeless parents, as if that wern't punishment enough. You have to phase it out surely? The current situation where kids can grow up not knowing an adult with a job is hardly sustainable or healthy.

Capitalism requires a certain level of unemplyment in order to operate. In a Western capitalist economy there cannot be 100% employment. Therefore there has to be a system in place to 'care' for these people. It may surprise you, but the feckless wasters who play the system and the families who haven't worked for generations wind me up as much as the next PHer. But these people are rarely, if ever, affected by austerity cuts, unlike the more genuine cases who always seem to get squeezed, as they are an easy target.

[TTwiggy]

Guam said:

TTwiggy said:

I'm sure it's terribly amusing to make this another one of those 'look at the deluded lefty' posts, but I was addressing my question to the Grufalo (ironic user name) and merely looking for clarification. Because based on what he typed I THINK he was suggesting that kids - through no fault of their own - born to feckless parents should be made to suffer, as it will effectively sort the wheat from the chaff. But maybe I've got him wrong?

He may be saying that he will have to explain, but to raise Victorian abuses of Child Labour as a monumental strawman is deserving of nothing more than mickey taking sorry!

I was musing on a period in British history (quite recent in the great scheme of things) where a lack of a welfare state did mean that child labour - and associated deaths - was rife. It's not a strawman, and it's going on right now in many parts of the world.

[anonymous-user]

TTwiggy said:

... these people are rarely, if ever, affected by austerity cuts...

What austerity cuts are these then?

[FredClogs]

TTwiggy said:

fblm said:

TTwiggy said:

Are you suggesting that if we make kids suffer for a simple accident of birth, then it will incentivise them to work harder in life? Sort of 'survival of the fittest' if you will? Do you want to explain the situation to every pre-schooler personally?

How do you get the genie back in the lamp? The problem is state largesse toward feckless idiots having children encourages generations of feckless idiots, at the same time, pulling the plug on them now punishes the children for having hopeless parents, as if that wern't punishment enough. You have to phase it out surely? The current situation where kids can grow up not knowing an adult with a job is hardly sustainable or healthy.

Capitalism requires a certain level of unemplyment in order to operate. In a Western capitalist economy there cannot be 100% employment. Therefore there has to be a system in place to 'care' for these people. It may surprise you, but the feckless wasters who play the system and the families who haven't worked for generations wind me up as much as the next PHer. But these people are rarely, if ever, affected by austerity cuts, unlike the more genuine cases who always seem to get squeezed, as they are an easy target.

Karl Marx said that for capitalism to succeed you need unemployment, there's nothing like the fear of poverty to drive the whip hand. Ffblm thinks we should ask be like him, make s fortune in banking gambling other peoples money then move to Monaco to avoid tax, if we were all like him there would be no poverty, ain't that right geezer? ( he's going to call me a name now but its ok, I can take it)

[Rude-boy]

Phased change to non medically influenced benefits. Increased opportunity for supported learning with incentivisation based on results in the form of grants.

Frankly we need to wake up to the fact that in our haste to create a utopian society we have become swept up by our own success at adapting ourselves and our surroundings to the extent that we have left part of our social group behind. We are at a point where we must deal with this issue before it comes to a natural head as by then the options will be more limited and less palatable.

[TTwiggy]

Guam said:

TTwiggy said:

I was musing on a period in British history (quite recent in the great scheme of things) where a lack of a welfare state did mean that child labour - and associated deaths - was rife. It's not a strawman, and it's going on right now in many parts of the world.

Quite Recent?

Seriously once again how old are you?
You will be banging on about mudlarks next (look them up)!

I am Sixty and my Grandad went into the yards at 12 FIL went to the hirelings at 13, quite normal in the thirties.
Neither of them were oppressed or bitter about their lot.
Both of them were pretty well read balanced hardworking individuals.
However neither of them could remember in their lifetimes kids up chimneys lol

Based on your sense of time, slavery was yesterday and Agincourt was last week lol

Yes, quite recent, as in well within the last 200 years. People have walked upright on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. The Victorian era was five minutes ago when you think in these terms. And we are stil living with many of the positive and negative aspects of that era. So yes, relevant.

And I don't need to look up what a mudlark is. I was born within spitting distance of the Thames.

[TTwiggy]

Guam said:

TTwiggy said:

Yes, quite recent, as in well within the last 200 years. People have walked upright on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. The Victorian era was five minutes ago when you think in these terms. And we are stil living with many of the positive and negative aspects of that era. So yes, relevant.

And I don't need to look up what a mudlark is. I was born within spitting distance of the Thames.

Please 200 years is a complete nonsense in turns of a comparative discussion regarding Modern Society, unless of course you still beat your wife with a stick no wider than your thumb, or Ladies should no longer show their ankle as its likely to inflame, seriously I have a lot of time for some of the points you make, but to hark back to Victorian England in a debate about the 21st Century is laughable it bears no relevance to what we see and do today.

I wasn't 'harking back' though. I was thinking out loud about the possible consequences of child poverty and of examples where children have had to work as a result of the poverty they were born into. I realise that there are a raft of laws in place that would make it impossible for these conditions to ever occur again, but we all necessarily look to history for inspiration and/or warnings.

[crankedup]

andymadmak said:

HewManHeMan said:

Good grief. Have a look around at what's actually going on. Engage with local communities. Open your eyes.

That is not an answer to how you can be so certain of the attitudes of people at the top of the Conservative party. Engage with local communities? OK, you are assuming that people do not already. Are you also implying in this that things were not bad in the Labour years..... ? There were 13 years of Labour government, were things sooooo much better then? But let's leave that aside for a moment and deal with the specifics of your claim...

So having engaged with the local community, (assuming I have not already) can you outline what you expect me to observe that is so much worse now than it was under Labour? You know what I mean, those things that prove that the Tories all think we are scum.. After all, it should be easy for a man of the people such as yourself to highlight just a few clear, salient issues.

You see, my problem with people like you is that you spout the "Tories think we're all scum" rhetoric as if you have facts to support your assertion, when in fact the reality is that you don't. You're just another silly little class warrior like Brand, Church et al. Ms Church says she'd be happy to pay 70% tax if only they'd let her. Well newsflash dearie, there's nothing to stop you getting your cheque book out and writing a nice big extra payment to HMRC.

Edited by andymadmak on Monday 22 June 14:38

The perception of Tories being superior to the ordinary 'man in the street' is a hangover from the top hat / tails and monocle days. Perhaps to a lesser extent the Thatcher years with the crushing of industrial Britain. Tories haven't helped themselves until recently with attempts to portray themselves as the middle England person. Blair used to occupy that area.

Top hats off, the Tories are throwing out some mackerels to the lower and middle class, now ordained to be called 'hard working families'. Some tax concessions, lowering Corporation tax, freezing Council tax and plans to cap housing benefit. Pensioners benifits left alone (yippee). Not much going on with gas and leccy charges as yet and housing is a large problem to be solved. Forcing housing associations to sell off stock is a slide backwards imo. All small stuff to appease and appeal to the largest two groups of voters.
As a Lib-Dem (remember them?)I am not to displeased with actions thus far from the current Government.

[Slaav]

HewManHeMan said:

Or the preservation of a society that helps those less fortunate?

Say I fall off my super fast carbon road bike and hit my head. I'm off work for months due to injury, I spiral into depression due various factors, my sick pay doesn't happen, I lose interest in my fancy MacBook, iPhone etc. I cant make the car payments; my fancy BMW has to go. I miss the mortgage payments. My swish and fancy house needs to go. I'm mentally and physically unwell, not able to cope.

What happens then? Because neither David Cameron or the Right Wing sociopaths here are interested in helping me out.

Then think of the people who're born into less fortunate positions. To whom a MacBook is the absolute last thing on their mind. They're going to be worse off.

It's this 'I'm alright' attitude that baffles me. You may be now, but nothing's permanent. Except for the super rich, that consider even the wealthiest PH'der to be lower class scum. We're all scum in the eyes of the people that run the Tory party. You'd do well to remember that.

Haven't read the whole thread yet as I am at work (late sandwich and a coffee) but in the scenario above, my own PHI would kick in - if I was badly depressed, my CIC would pay out under TPD. If I am only able to return to a lesser career (I know...) then my PHI will supplement my 'income' to get me through to retirement.

I think or believe it is called personal responsibility! I choose to NOT be reliant on the state or benefits. I have no faith that they will be enough nor will be around for ever.

I am happy to subsidise the payment of benefits for those who truly deserve them. Not those who would rather have four plasma TVs and not insure themselves or their families' futures.

Now waiting to be flamed when I read further in the thread

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

...Thatcher years with the crushing of industrial Britain...

Welcome back cranked! You know that dead horse of yours is not going to live no matter how much you flog it.

[andymadmak]

crankedup said:

........... the Thatcher years with the crushing of industrial Britain.

I bet you're the kind of bloke who complains about not being allowed to smoke anymore when the surgeon removes the cancerous lump from your lung

[gruffalo]

TTwiggy said:

gruffalo said:

I think what we see with today's kids from disadvantaged backgrounds is learnt behaviour caused by an ever increasing dependancy on the state to sport them.

Best argument so far too shrink the welfare state.

Are you suggesting that if we make kids suffer for a simple accident of birth, then it will incentivise them to work harder in life? Sort of 'survival of the fittest' if you will? Do you want to explain the situation to every pre-schooler personally?

No I am not saying that, they have to be supported till they can work.

They also need to be made fully aware that they will not be supported forever and certainly will not be pastis to breed.

There are stacks of jobs that need absolutely zero skill and aptitude, crop picking, washing cars and emptying bins to name but three.

People need to stop thinking that the magic money tree will just keep paying them to do nothing.

[crankedup]

Thanks chaps!! I've really missed reading the art form that is selective editing that distorts the actual intent within a post.(Andy)

Nice to be back FBLM, thank you. Now you do know that stat's can only tell part of reality. Introduce a Policy and expect a time lag before the Policy begins to bite and have effect. you didn't expect me not to reply!

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Now you do know that stat's can only tell part of reality.

Indeed. Hundreds of thousands lost jobs in industries that were in terminal decline. Hundreds of thousands were employed in industries that subsequently boomed and continue to do so to this day. Net employment in industry dropped and output rose. A similar story then to every other indutrialised country, including the likes of Germany and Japan. How the change in employment from one industry to another was handled, or not, does not justify the often said but completely wrong statement that 'Thatcher crushed industrial Britain'.

[citizensm1th]

andymadmak said:

Snozzwangler said:

citizensm1th said:

I was born in the sarf the isle of wight in fact. I left school in 1982 and in a fit of youthful ignorance voted tory at my first election(I blame my brother he always was a bullying tt). I grew up on the pan estate in Newport of divorced parents from very working class stock. I have despite leaving school with only 8 cse's bought my own house something my parents could never have even contemplated ,I have only ever in all the years since 1982 been out of work for a total of ten weeks as I have made a point of working what ever the job from clearing dead peoples houses to running nightclubs.
When you look at my story I look like tebbits poster boy of the 80,s but I will never ever ever ever vote tory again after what I saw them do to the uk in the 80,s

What do you think they did in the 80s?

I think citizen is objecting to Mrs Thatcher having to take some tough decisions in order to rebuild GB PLC after it had to go cap in hand to the IMF in the 1970s.. Apparently 3 day weeks, power cuts, standpipes, miners strikes, red robbo, bodies being stored in fridge containers and the winter of discontent were all preferable to the creation of an enterprise economy....

No I don't object to the changes that had to happen but the ways and means of the change as driven by tory ideology and quite honestly you can all save your breath nothing will ever change my mind as to voting tory.

[Troubleatmill]

Where's that chart about coal miners being wiped out by Labour Govt's over the years?


Yet.... the revolutionaries keep shouting out Miners..... Thatcher bile.

[Smollet]

citizensm1th said:

No I don't object to the changes that had to happen but the ways and means of the change as driven by tory ideology and quite honestly you can all save your breath nothing will ever change my mind as to voting tory.

So logic and financial responsibility doesn't sit well with you then ?

[Pan Pan Pan]

FredClogs said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

TEKNOPUG said:

MarshPhantom said:

I like how he is obviously better than anyone who ever caught a bus.

Bus wkers!

Seems a bit rich from someone driving by in a small euro box, Now if it had been a Lambhorghini, they might have had a point.

It's a popular culture reference, you wouldn't get it, you're probably too busy working to consume 21st century popular culture. I'd be interested to understand why you think Lambhorghini(sic) owners get a pass to be tts?

It may well be a popular culture reference, but I was clearly referring to a single known individual (not the population in general) who took pleasure from sneering at, and taking the p*ss out of those (regardless of background/ wealth intelligence etc) whose only crime was to work as hard they could to better themselves. Do you sneer at people you don't know, simply because they are standing at a bus stop? I don't.
But the delicious irony of that specific leftie tw*t, standing at the bus stop, when one of the people, he used to take the p*ss out of for working hard at school, drove by in a sports car, surely cannot be lost even on you?

[mybrainhurts]

andymadmak said:

crankedup said:

........... the Thatcher years with the crushing of industrial Britain.

I bet you're the kind of bloke who complains about not being allowed to smoke anymore when the surgeon removes the cancerous lump from your lung

crankedup is Arthur Scargill's dad and I claim my copy of Socialist Worker to hang in the bog...