Lovely idea to take money off the poorest workers to fund Granny going off to feed the ducks while she has a £2m house
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Lovely idea to take money off the poorest workers to fund Granny going off to feed the ducks while she has a £2m house
It’s not taking money off poor people.
Stick everyone in a home at 67 and be done with it. Sell off everyone’s homes.
When people suffer diminished capacity their care should be from a balance of funding sources, including their own means if they can afford it.
In fact, May went about it like a Tory would and wanted to cap it to £100k per home, so feck the working class and Northerners
Unless they have a disability, right?
Or they’re civil servants.
Last edited:
Big words for someone constantly saying we need big cuts to benefits to make up the deficit.
I'm honestly amazed at how easy some people can turn the performative empathy on and off like a tap whenever it suits them.
I got the heads up that I’d been quoted a no. Of times.
Perhaps a record, 3 people who are on my ignore list in a row!
Firstly - you will see that I consistently advocate greater spending on those that need it the most. So to suggest, that I firstly have an issue with disability and secondly that I wish the govt. to spend less on those with a disability is both a lie, and also indicative of the poster. No surprises really. Liar.
Secondly, I believe that the civil service is bloated, and that it should be slimmed down, and can deliver the same or greater level of service. I think that’s worthy of a sensible conversation, but clearly not.
Thirdly. I don’t understand the point of The Pigeon.
As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, it’s useful to put both threads and posters on ignore to protect your own mental health. I think that’s really valid, and means that despite this post I won’t be engaging with these posters. There’s a reason why they are on ignore, and it wasn’t recent.
Peace and love.
Perhaps a record, 3 people who are on my ignore list in a row!
Firstly - you will see that I consistently advocate greater spending on those that need it the most. So to suggest, that I firstly have an issue with disability and secondly that I wish the govt. to spend less on those with a disability is both a lie, and also indicative of the poster. No surprises really. Liar.
Secondly, I believe that the civil service is bloated, and that it should be slimmed down, and can deliver the same or greater level of service. I think that’s worthy of a sensible conversation, but clearly not.
Thirdly. I don’t understand the point of The Pigeon.
As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, it’s useful to put both threads and posters on ignore to protect your own mental health. I think that’s really valid, and means that despite this post I won’t be engaging with these posters. There’s a reason why they are on ignore, and it wasn’t recent.
Peace and love.
I suspect the civil service could be bloated with a consultancy and management class mostly because im cynical and probably biased. Set the pigeon free, he's fun and if he's giving you grief you probably deserve it and he's fun.
Whether it is bloated or not isn’t really the point. We are already in a position when there are more unemployed than there are jobs available. When the private sector isn’t creating jobs then the public sector needs to. The main reason that civil service jobs expanded was due to Brexit. Guess who voted for that?
Clayton isn’t interested in sensible discussion and that’s why he has us on ignore. He doesn’t want to be challenged on hypocrisy. He claims to want people in work but would happily see thousands of civil servants out of work. He also wants welfare cut. What will those people who lose their jobs do for money if there is no welfare for them? You can’t say that your position is that you want to see people out earning their money and then advocate the Government sacking a load of people.
Where am I lying? Every single time you're here you're advocating the cutting of benefits to those with disabilities. Now crying off playing the victim, here are a few receipts, not that you'll see them. Please raise your voice to tell me where I'm lying...
These simply from the last few weeks, all aimlessly saying that benefits are going to too many people without any consideration of their actual need for support.
A conversation is to be had about this, for example I can access funds that I technically don't need to support my daughter who has Down Syndrome, because her needs aren't as sever as others we know. Therefore we should have benefits based on individual need, I get less based on my need, so others get more based on their need.
But that's not a conversation you ever engage with, because all you ever suggest is it's too big and people don't deserve it. I've raised the topic of more targetted assessment 5 or 6 times now, and you claim victimhood at being attacked when what's actually going on is that your opinion and comments are being challenged and scrutinised.
Have you actually read the comments that you quoted.
Multiple times I’ve written we should spend more on those who need it. What do you think in that means?
I don’t need to go back through old posts, because my view is consistent.
It’s the exact opposite of saying I want to cut welfare for disabilities. That’s why you are a liar. There is no victimhood here either - that’s a narrative you’ve created. You aren’t someone I want to engage with, but it’s difficult not to reply when you are making things up.
It's just laughable!
You're saying that 'those with the need' should get more but arbitrarily saying a huge cohort don't deserve them. You've not met them, assessed them, have any form of history with these people (that I know of) and yet you cast them as fraudsters and chancers. Now, like I said, their need may not be as great as others, but who are you to just arbitrarily wipe out any need that they may have?
And I'm sorry, but the victumhood is clear to see, whether it's "I don't want to go around in circles" about Net Zero when someone posts videos from PhDs and you have the equivalent of Grandma Betsie's Facebook posts (sorry, that is a bit of an attack, but on the quality of your posts) or having 'arguments' about disability benefits when you come in, call a significant number of claimants liars and chancers, and then scurry away when anyone (not just me) calls you out on it!
But I'm the problem because I simply don't accept opinions that are based on 1980's talk show rhetoric, that aren't even skin deep, and have no discernable foundations in reality.
Our welfare bill is far too large and unsustainable. You don’t like that viewpoint. Because you think n it’s a personal attack on you. It’s not, I don’t know anything about your circumstances, and it’s irrelevant.
I’ve been a big advocate of removing the triple lock for example - whilst is not (and I’ve been clear) a cut in welfare, it reduces the rate of increase.
There are obviously multiple ways of tackling the issue - but not once have I ever said I wanted to cut benefits for someone that’s disabled. That’s why you are a liar, and it can’t be more clear than that.
Genuinely if you think I’m playing a victim, that’s on you and not someone I’m interested in. People disagree, and I’m sure there are lots of things you could highlight when you trawl through old posts - just don’t make things up.
Off to watch reruns of Wogan and to find people talking about welfare and grannies. Wish me luck.
1. I've never once seen your points as an attack on me. I see them as an attack on vulnerable people. I've never been a fan of punching down on anyone, ever.
2. 'Not once have I ever said I wanted to cut benefits for someone that's disabled' - the posts I've quoted say otherwise. You label people as not needing benefits without any kind of nuance reasoning, supporting data, or frankly anything to support your arguments. What if (I don't believe this to be the case either, but it's a possibility) every single person claims benefits does actually need it? What if, for example, the cumulative effects of Brexit, Austerity and being in lockdowns for > 2 years (* not a debate out whether lockdowns were right or not - I believe they were necessary, but I'm fortunate to live in a 4 bed detached house with a sizeable garden and in the countryside, so I was able to take my dog for a walk each day and get out of house without issue) has exaccerbated issues that may have, originally, been minor, into major pathologies and issues? Let's not forget how GPs, hospital departments etc essentially shut for routine appointments for this time. Your opinion doesn't account for anything like this to be even possible, which is why I scrutinise and challenge it.
3. There are indeed multiple ways of tackling the issue - but you've never once suggested one! I have, frequently, and detailed how the cost / benefit (see what I did there!) analysis would be lacking. But you've never engaged in that. Why not? It's a valid question to raise...
Person 1: I think we should target benefits to the people who specifically need them
Person 2: OK, but wouldn't that need massive investment in caseworkers and resources? Would that cost outweigh the savings made?
Person 1: I'm not interested in having an argument - goodbye!
What is that if not playing victim?
If you read ‘increasing benefits for those who need it most’ as cutting benefits for those who are disabled - then I genuinely don’t know where to go with that.
You seem to want to force me to agree with your opinion. I have no such desire for you to change, I’m simply calling you out for making things up. I have told you right from the start that I don’t want to engage with you specifically. That’s why I haven’t for a long time.
Lastly, it seems you want to be a victim, and that’s why you have this bizarre take I’m claiming to be something I’m not. Not wanting to engage with someone is not playing a victim - but perhaps that says much more about your own mentality than mine?
Fundamentally I have nothing to you, just stop making things up. Wogan awaits.
Ok sure but...
To be fair you're not saying that disabled people shouldn't be helped, you're just questioning whether or not they're disabled. Which I guess is a debate worth having if only to see you go back and forth about people living with dignity in peace. Obviously not with yourself though as I'm on ignore, thank feck for that small mercy.
Burham in the negative now
There must be some stats or a chart out there that track how well known politicians are over time and how that relates to their opinion polling
I am sure you are right... 'familiarity breeds contempt'.
If Burnham had 'real leadership' quality he would have found a way to the top after the JC fiasco.
He didn't, but he did do well in Manchester (on certain issues like transport) and there is a place for him in the Cabinet, but not as leader, not yet anyway!
Starmer 'seized the day' after JC's flop, and he delivered the biggest Labour majority ever in the last GE.
Whilst his persona is difficult to come to terms with for many, both inside and outside Labour; Starmer should be given the chance to follow up on the opportunity he created, no one I can see within the Labour party at this time in these conditions could do any better.
If Andy wins in Makerfield, he should accept becoming Starmer's No.2 and they can work out a deal that if by the middle of 2028, nothing has improved then Keir can (voluntarily) stand down and Andy get his 'coronation' and chance as leader.
This would have the added attraction of spiking the guns of 'wannabe's'.
Burnham is not running this accept a place in the Cabinet. He’s already well into his leadership campaign.
I will say this - political parties giving their members a choice in choosing the next leader has led to elongated and drawn out leadership elections and campaigns which have meant central government has been left paralysed for weeks or months.
Callaghan won an election three weeks after Wilson resigned in 1976. Geoffrey Howe resigned on 13 November 1990 and Major was PM two weeks later.
I would not bet against it!!
It would be a blood bath for Labour* if it goes to a 'pitch battle' with one or two others throwing their hats in the ring as well.
(* of course you might like this outcome??)
I had read that the Labour Party have particularly noted the paralysis after Boris resigned.
I agree, and especially in this day and age, there’s no excuse for excessive time frames.
In the assumption he will launch an official leadership bid - for everyone’s sake. I hope it’s quick.
As above, I, and I expect everyone just wants it over quickly.I would not bet against it!!
It would be a blood bath for Labour* if it goes to a 'pitch battle' with one or two others throwing their hats in the ring as well.
(* of course you might like this outcome??)
Can you really see a (realistic) scenario where Burnham wins on Thursday and then never pursues a leadership challenge?
Its not NEVER... its delayed for about two years.
The advantages are obvious; it really depends on whether (assuming he wins in Makerfield) Andy really is interested in 'becoming leader'... at all costs (a tenacity he didn't show after JC departed) or, if he seriously wants to help keep the party together, 'to fight another day,' with its massive majority still intact.
The PLP's 'knee-jerk' reaction, after the local elections had them wobbling, with the this ..."lets get a new leader and everything will be OK " nonsense; hopefully they will now all wake up in time and realise it isn't just a dream its a potential nightmare!
Do you think he’s going to sit on his hands for two years? It that your personal opinion, or a hypothesis on what could happen?
Surely it’s beyond question he wants to become leader - he’s run twice already, and he’s giving up his kingdom.
No politician (or at least very few) care about the party, it’s all about personal gain - and it’s no different with him.
Starmer's is an ugly, brutish regime. To flagrantly bait people like this for clout in the shadow of genocide is evidence of what most suspect - that they are perfectly content with the tens of thousands of dead children. There is no moral argument to vote for this disgusting Labour party anymore. They have nothing.
Russian frigate fires warning shots at British yacht in Channel – reports
Ministry of Defence investigates after shots apparently fired within 500 metres of vessel near Isle of Wighthttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ing-shots-at-british-yacht-in-channel-reports
Reduced to attempts at entrapment.
A Telegraph journalist writes this:
I doubt this will turn into a major incident, doesn't seem ominous.
I was more concerned that the nearest ship was HMS Tyne, and even that checked the yacht after the fact. Shows the state of the navy, I suppose.
Given the position, should Andy win in Makerfield, the Labour party has to decide whether now is the time for cooler heads, or committing some sort of collective suicide.
The idea of steading the PLP with this future planned 'changing of the guard,' offers a way out and would appeal to many in the PLP who want to sèe peace breaking out!
I’m in Doha at the moment. Two British news channels here at the hotel … BBC and … GB news - fml. This shit is so much worse than fox
Rightly so. If you can’t bloody spell properly, then you should be beaten to a pulp.
I have no idea why I know this, but the Australian Labor Party do spell their name that way despite Aussies using the spelling "labour" for all other usages of the word.
That’s good knowledge. Hopefully useful on a pub quiz?
You'd hope so! Still waiting for it to come up...
Sorry, what?
Whats wrong with a 'Well Done lads'?