Dave89
Full Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 17,553
Owen Jones haters are in good company...http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-li...was-on-question-time-last-night-was-he-awful/
Surely some kind of parody?Owen Jones haters are in good company...http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-li...was-on-question-time-last-night-was-he-awful/
Yeah, the same person then accused the other 'ignorant' one of not even knowing that the West Bank and Gaza both used to belong to Jordan in the first place.He was brilliant when talking of the Palestine/Israel conflict.
I LOLd when one audience member called another ignorant
He just pissed off everyone in the audience actually who saw him for the opportunist fraud he is. IDS was just absolutely contemptuous of him, and it's difficult not to be.He's certainly got the Tory Boys rattled, and he got Duncan Smith to turn up the volume again.
And the moralising of the far left continues. This implication that anyone in the centre or right wants vulnerable people to be hurt is just ridiculous.Yeah, who does he think he is, standing up for the vulnerable like that. Commy twat.
Jones' mind would be at peace so long as the vulnerable had benefits. IDS, faults or no, has a medium to long term aim for as many as possible being more active members of society.Yeah, who does he think he is, standing up for the vulnerable like that. Commy twat.
What I, and most people in this country, don't accept, is people on benefits being wealthier than those who work. Very few people want to get rid of welfare entirely, and especially not for the disabled. It's a very obvious post, but it seems to need saying.Very few ideologically want them to be (though the frothy mouthed cut-all-benefits brigade is growing), but a large number seem happily willing accept collateral damage.
Obvious and pointless. Few would disagree with such a simple statement whether they were right or left.What I, and most people in this country, don't accept, is people on benefits being wealthier than those who work. Very few people want to get rid of welfare entirely, and especially not for the disabled. It's a very obvious post, but it seems to need saying.
Most people probably accept that. What they don't like is people who are genuinely unable to work having their benefits cut and told they can work, with the misery that brings to them.What I, and most people in this country, don't accept, is people on benefits being wealthier than those who work. Very few people want to get rid of welfare entirely, and especially not for the disabled. It's a very obvious post, but it seems to need saying.
Then the appropriate support should be there, not just swingeing cuts that affect those who are unable to find work. And what about the demonisation of the able-bodied unemployed? You can't open a right-leaning paper without an attack on them of some shape or another, even though there quite simply aren't enough jobs to go around http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...curtis/2012/feb/06/jobs-shortage-maria-miller (bit dated, but I doubt there's beeen a massive swing either way in the past 9 months).Jones' mind would be at peace so long as the vulnerable had benefits. IDS, faults or no, has a medium to long term aim for as many as possible being more active members of society.
Why is it that Jones doesn't give some disabled the credit they are due, that they could gain more from life than the existing systems and structures promote?
Looking down on someone for having different opinions? You big leftie you.He just pissed off everyone in the audience actually who saw him for the opportunist fraud he is. IDS was just absolutely contemptuous of him, and it's difficult not to be.
So then pay the workers a decent wage. A life on benefits is not a luxury, no matter what the sun or the mail tell you, and I have first hand experience of being raised on feck all money, which is why I don't begrudge kids in a similar scenario some of "my" tax money now.What I, and most people in this country, don't accept, is people on benefits being wealthier than those who work. Very few people want to get rid of welfare entirely, and especially not for the disabled. It's a very obvious post, but it seems to need saying.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/nov/20/benefits-stigma-newspapers-report-welfareThen the appropriate support should be there, not just swingeing cuts that affect those who are unable to find work. And what about the demonisation of the able-bodied unemployed? You can't open a right-leaning paper without an attack on them of some shape or another, even though there quite simply aren't enough jobs to go around http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...curtis/2012/feb/06/jobs-shortage-maria-miller (bit dated, but I doubt there's beeen a massive swing either way in the past 9 months).
Tax credits are actually a subsidy to businesses who won't pay their staff a living wage, than to the actual claimant themselves.If someone is working full time, and worse off than someone receiving a pittance from the state, then serious questions need to be asked of their employer.
You're going to be ignored on this, you know that, don't you?http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/nov/20/benefits-stigma-newspapers-report-welfare
Indeed. As Owen Jones alluded to last night, the right wing press have a nasty and deliberate agenda against people on benefits and set out to demonise them. Stupid morons of course pick this up and think everyone on benefits is living in a £1.2 million Fulham townhouse, with 8 kids and widescreen tvs on every wall.
You only have to look at Freud's comments last night on the benefits 'lifestyle'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/22/benefits-system-dreadful-tory-minister
It really is breathtakingly nasty.
Whether this government wants to hurt the vulnerable or not is besides the point. The fact is that, regardless of their intent, they are hurting an awful lot of the most vulnerable people in society.And the moralising of the far left continues. This implication that anyone in the centre or right wants vulnerable people to be hurt is just ridiculous.
So you agree that the government should strive to drive down living costs and push up wages then?What I, and most people in this country, don't accept, is people on benefits being wealthier than those who work.
Oh god. As bad as a lot of the stuff claimed by people on here. Actually almost identical.*Parental advisory for Owen Jones fans*
Blinded by his politics.
That was brilliantHe was brilliant when talking of the Palestine/Israel conflict.
I LOLd when one audience member called another ignorant
Or how many big companies pay a pittance of corporation tax, while the government sack HMRC staff left right and centre, instead of fixing this crazy situation root and branch. But that would drive away wealth creators and is the politics of envyShall we play a game of "guess how many big companies exploit the unemployed for unpaid labour over the Christmas period"?
Most people who vote left probably do so because they believe it is more fair/equitable. What's wrong with that? You have to vote for what you believe.Just read the threads on the Caf - 'I vote left because I believe in fairness and justice etc.' It's bollocks.
Giving the disabled a daily sense of purpose, that mental well being and social inclusion that employment provides.Ah yes, because state communes of work for the disabled were the only way to go?
These were originally set up in 1945 to assist wounded soldiers after the war.I'm sorry but this mindset that Labour matches deeds to rhetoric when it comes to the needy, is to be kind, flawed.
Do they offer a safety net to bounce back from, or a clinging web out of sight and out of mind.
Which is all well and good but hardly enough given the numbers involved and the year in which we live.These were originally set up in 1945 to assist wounded soldiers after the war.
Believe it or not, some of the most disabled would struggle to work in a normal working environment for many reasons shown above. Their disability genuinely holds them back.
I don't see anything wrong with giving them a work environment where they are comfortable. In the grand scheme of things it costs feck all and the sense of purpose and inclusion it gives them massively outweighs any of the negatives you present.