Another MP in Internet history fail
Discussion
JuniorD said:
"All in all around 190 families like this cost the taxpayer over £11 million a year!"
So that's about 2000 people.
In 2013-4 the TOTAL cost of 650 odd MPs' expenses and costs was £103m. And they were on £65k basic salaries.
It's difficult to tell which scroungers are costing more...
+1So that's about 2000 people.
In 2013-4 the TOTAL cost of 650 odd MPs' expenses and costs was £103m. And they were on £65k basic salaries.
It's difficult to tell which scroungers are costing more...
oyster said:
Within that 99.995% spend is heating allowances and bus passes for my parents generation. People who have profited from £500,000+ of tax free gains on their home. People who can afford to take 7 or 8 cruises a year.
I don't think many pensioners that can afford "7 or 8 cruises a year" turn into bus w
kers when they are at home in their £500k+ mansions, do you?Note: Bus w
kers is a joke from TV, not a slight on anyone that can't afford to waft round in a Bentley.oyster said:
He's obviously not particularly numerate.
To spout all the venom for 0.005% of the total welfare budget. Why isn't his focus on the other 99.995%?
Within that 99.995% spend is heating allowances and bus passes for my parents generation. People who have profited from £500,000+ of tax free gains on their home. People who can afford to take 7 or 8 cruises a year. People who were able to retire at the same age as people 40 years ago, even though they will live 10 years longer.
Is that enough for them? Hell no.
How about we promise that their incomes are guaranteed to go up by inflation?
Not enough.... what if wage growth is higher than inflation?
Oh you can have that too.
And what if wage growth and inflation are very low?
OK, here's 2.5% increase then.
But what about those low interest rates? Please can we have some more......
OK, well since you don't get much for free already - here's some pensioner bonds.
So how much do bus passes - or to put it another way, subsidies for public transport - cost the government?To spout all the venom for 0.005% of the total welfare budget. Why isn't his focus on the other 99.995%?
Within that 99.995% spend is heating allowances and bus passes for my parents generation. People who have profited from £500,000+ of tax free gains on their home. People who can afford to take 7 or 8 cruises a year. People who were able to retire at the same age as people 40 years ago, even though they will live 10 years longer.
Is that enough for them? Hell no.
How about we promise that their incomes are guaranteed to go up by inflation?
Not enough.... what if wage growth is higher than inflation?
Oh you can have that too.
And what if wage growth and inflation are very low?
OK, here's 2.5% increase then.
But what about those low interest rates? Please can we have some more......
OK, well since you don't get much for free already - here's some pensioner bonds.
You seem to suggest that income from homes should be taxed, yet suggest that death duties are a good thing brings your generation out in hives (see fairly recent thread on the subject). How about those who bought shares? Or, perhaps, classic cars? Should their good sense be taxed?
Taking holidays, now there's a massive crime just waiting to be punished. I might well be of the same generation as your parents. If so then they, like me, might have had to forgo holidays, other than camping in the UK, for years. They, like me, might have had their first foreign holiday when in their 30s. When did you take your first?
Did they save up for the deposit on their house, like I did? Spending two years not spending my fiance's income? Cutting back on socialising that didn't including going around to someone's house?
There's lots of other whatabouts one could quote. I don't begrudge my kids' holidays in foreign climes I've only read about, their iPhones, iPads, games consoles, nights out and such. Perhaps I'm just not the jealous type.
Retiring at the same age as 40 years ago, eh? Neither of my grandfathers reached retirement age. My father died at 64, looking forward to spending time with his grandchildren, something denied him by the hours he had to work. I'm grateful to him and only wish that he had a few more years left when he could, perhaps, indulge in cruises, spending my inheritance.
If one should suggest that kids today should do what I did when I wanted to buy a house: spend nothing, go nowhere, walk to work, walking through a local park as an afternoon out with my fiance, for two years and it is suggested, with some justification, that it should be better for them than it was for me.
I was employed all but two weeks from the age of 16. I've paid taxes and without complaint. I knew they were there to support my parents' generation. I only wish my father could have gone on cruises after working from the age of 14, for fighting in a war for six years, for enduring booms and busts.
Try not being quite so jealous. If you want to improve your lot, then do so. Don't moan that you want to lower other people's.
sugerbear said:
sidicks said:
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
His observation is that people shouldn’t have children if they can’t afford them. One possible option is free vasectomies. He hasn’t suggested these are made compulsory. Other birth control options are available!My mate (and his wife) are Catholics. He's 54, she's about the same, and they have only two kids. And I don't think they were waiting for divine intervention to limit the size of their family for them...
I'm not a Catholic. I had a vasectomy in my thirties. I had two kids, and a wife who I was happy with (still am, by the way). It took two attempts to get the snip, because the first doctor who saw me about it decided not to refer me for one. But he was a fossil of a locum. If he'd have acted upon my request I'd have had the op done in my twenties.
As for sidicks' comments? I'm entirely with him. He (Ben Bradley) hasn't said that the unemployed should get vasectomies - far from it, all he's done is highlight one possible tool to control human reproduction. He's hardly talking about rounding up the poor and forcing them (male or female) to have their tubes tied. All he's saying is that it's irresponsible to reproduce as a means to avoid boredom. Condoms are free too, from birth control clinics and GUM clinics. It needn't cost a fortune, and does not require chemicals, nor an operation in order to "keep a lid on it". Just a modicum of common sense really.
I'd love a second car. But I can't stretch to the tax, insurance, or servicing costs. Would anybody like to fund my lifestyle choice through general taxation without being given an option to say "No"?
Thought not.
This is just an attempt at censorship. Gagging anyone who would enter into a debate about social responsibility. It's why some areas are in such a state in the first place. No one seems to be willing to discuss such problems, and those who ARE the problem are hell-bent on making sure that no-one is allowed to say "No" to THEM.
And before anyone starts down the "you don't know what it's like" route? I grew up in a large household that was reliant entirely on benefits for most of my childhood. My dad lost his job in the 1970s and we lived in a three bed council house. It wasn't the definition of hell on earth, granted, but life would have been a whole lot better if my parents' love and the household income had been shared between two or three kids rather than the six it had to stretch to. It's why I limited myself to just the two kids myself. "Responsinbility" isn't a dirty word. People who's income doesn't match their ambition need to learn that, I'm afraid.
And no, I'm not a Tory voter neither, before that question gets asked.
This whole story is just a storm in a teacup. The problem is less what Ben Bradley MP said, and more with the "Righteous Indignation" mob who have failed in English Comprehension 101. He's being bashed for an opinion, yet it's hardly the first step to Fascism and Nazi-style Eugenics...
yellowjack said:
And before anyone starts down the "you don't know what it's like" route? I grew up in a large household that was reliant entirely on benefits for most of my childhood. My dad lost his job in the 1970s and we lived in a three bed council house. It wasn't the definition of hell on earth, granted, but life would have been a whole lot better if my parents' love and the household income had been shared between two or three kids rather than the six it had to stretch to. It's why I limited myself to just the two kids myself. "Responsinbility" isn't a dirty word. People who's income doesn't match their ambition need to learn that, I'm afraid.
Strictly speaking it’s not actually a word at all! 
I agree with him completely.
It's like going out and buying a Ferrari and then complaining you can't afford to run it and ask the Government to step in to bail you out.
Perfectly fit and healthy people (fit enough to reproduce) should not be sat at home earning more than people who work for being lazy and popping kids out.
It's like going out and buying a Ferrari and then complaining you can't afford to run it and ask the Government to step in to bail you out.
Perfectly fit and healthy people (fit enough to reproduce) should not be sat at home earning more than people who work for being lazy and popping kids out.
sidicks said:
yellowjack said:
And before anyone starts down the "you don't know what it's like" route? I grew up in a large household that was reliant entirely on benefits for most of my childhood. My dad lost his job in the 1970s and we lived in a three bed council house. It wasn't the definition of hell on earth, granted, but life would have been a whole lot better if my parents' love and the household income had been shared between two or three kids rather than the six it had to stretch to. It's why I limited myself to just the two kids myself. "Responsinbility" isn't a dirty word. People who's income doesn't match their ambition need to learn that, I'm afraid.
Strictly speaking it’s not actually a word at all! Fat fingers! In my defense, 'N' and 'B' are next to each other on my keyboard. Fair play though. My proof-reading needs work!
Cupramax said:
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
What do you suggest to stop those who don't have any money to fund their shagging habit?yellowjack said:
Lots of sensible stuff.
Absolutely, but the Twitchfork mob aren't happy until they've hounded anyone they consider a Nazi (ie. anyone right of Corbyn) out of a job.Just like BOR and MX5nut on here they don't read what the MP actually said or wrote, they look at a BBC or Guardian article which paraphrases badly, draw the inevitably wrong conclusion that he's a Tory so must be advocating eugenics, then Tweet like crazy about how the 'Nasty Party' are promoting actual Nazis to senior positions like the shameful baby-eating monsters they are.
The same media then reports the 'outrage' (as they now rely on whatever is trending on Twitter to make all their editorial decisions) and the MP is forced to issue a groveling apology to his Inquisitors.
Which by the way does no good at all because Tory = Nazi in the mind of these people whatever they actually say or mean.
Mark Benson said:
Absolutely, but the Twitchfork mob aren't happy until they've hounded anyone they consider a Nazi (ie. anyone right of Corbyn) out of a job.
Just like BOR and MX5nut on here they don't read what the MP actually said or wrote, they look at a BBC or Guardian article which paraphrases badly, draw the inevitably wrong conclusion that he's a Tory so must be advocating eugenics, then Tweet like crazy about how the 'Nasty Party' are promoting actual Nazis to senior positions like the shameful baby-eating monsters they are.
The same media then reports the 'outrage' (as they now rely on whatever is trending on Twitter to make all their editorial decisions) and the MP is forced to issue a groveling apology to his Inquisitors.
Which by the way does no good at all because Tory = Nazi in the mind of these people whatever they actually say or mean.
Excellent post Mark. We are at a point where The Left have decided to use social media to discredit anyone with whom they disagree - even if comments like Ben Bradley's are entirely legitimate. The Left wish to shut down discussion; whether it is Momentum, certain universities, Labour MP's like Angela Rayner, or the likes of Paul Mason (Momentum, again). Their tactics not only stink of censorship, they also remind me of the old Soviet Union and that should worry anyone that believes in free speech.Just like BOR and MX5nut on here they don't read what the MP actually said or wrote, they look at a BBC or Guardian article which paraphrases badly, draw the inevitably wrong conclusion that he's a Tory so must be advocating eugenics, then Tweet like crazy about how the 'Nasty Party' are promoting actual Nazis to senior positions like the shameful baby-eating monsters they are.
The same media then reports the 'outrage' (as they now rely on whatever is trending on Twitter to make all their editorial decisions) and the MP is forced to issue a groveling apology to his Inquisitors.
Which by the way does no good at all because Tory = Nazi in the mind of these people whatever they actually say or mean.
The irony is that today's Tory party has more in common with Blair's centrist Labour than with a genuinely "nasty" party.
Brave Fart said:
Excellent post Mark. We are at a point where The Left have decided to use social media to discredit anyone with whom they disagree - even if comments like Ben Bradley's are entirely legitimate. The Left wish to shut down discussion; whether it is Momentum, certain universities, Labour MP's like Angela Rayner, or the likes of Paul Mason (Momentum, again). Their tactics not only stink of censorship, they also remind me of the old Soviet Union and that should worry anyone that believes in free speech.
The irony is that today's Tory party has more in common with Blair's centrist Labour than with a genuinely "nasty" party.
Oh come on now, Corbyn has been the target, rightly or wrongly, of disparaging remarks, comments, views by social media for quite some time now. The irony is that today's Tory party has more in common with Blair's centrist Labour than with a genuinely "nasty" party.
No one Party is any less guilty of this than any other
Brave Fart said:
Excellent post Mark. We are at a point where The Left have decided to use social media to discredit anyone with whom they disagree - even if comments like Ben Bradley's are entirely legitimate. The Left wish to shut down discussion; whether it is Momentum, certain universities, Labour MP's like Angela Rayner, or the likes of Paul Mason (Momentum, again). Their tactics not only stink of censorship, they also remind me of the old Soviet Union and that should worry anyone that believes in free speech.
The irony is that today's Tory party has more in common with Blair's centrist Labour than with a genuinely "nasty" party.
Momentum reserve even more spite for New Labour than they do for the Conservatives.The irony is that today's Tory party has more in common with Blair's centrist Labour than with a genuinely "nasty" party.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff