Thatcher Dead

[Perthbum]

From your link....

 

 

When asked on a visit to Derby whether the Philpotts were a product of Britain's benefit system, Osborne said: "It's right we ask questions as a government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like these. It does need to be handled."

 

 

He said Philpott "was responsible for horrendous crimes, crimes which have shocked the nation".

 

 

Try to read the whole story, not just the headline....

 

:biglaugh: ohhh dear....but you said it was a made up quote...you really are funny.

[pablo]

From your link....

 

 

When asked on a visit to Derby whether the Philpotts were a product of Britain's benefit system, Osborne said: "It's right we ask questions as a government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like these. It does need to be handled."

 

 

He said Philpott "was responsible for horrendous crimes, crimes which have shocked the nation".

 

 

Try to read the whole story, not just the headline....

 

Anyone with half a brain wouldnt have allowed the question to go without saying "whats the statistical link between somebody killing six innocent kids and benefits claimants?"

Yet osbourne's pavlovs dog reaction was to more or less agree with the question,dress it up all you want,thats how it came across

[StevieF8]

Anyone with half a brain wouldnt have allowed the question to go without saying "whats the statistical link between somebody killing six innocent kids and benefits claimants?"

Yet osbourne's pavlovs dog reaction was to more or less agree with the question,dress it up all you want,thats how it came across

 

Yeah we already had 2days of opinion on this last week....asked a loaded question, he said we need a debate...that's when the figures will be discussed regarding benefits & killing kids.....

[pablo]

Yeah we already had 2days of opinion on this last week....asked a loaded question, he said we need a debate...that's when the figures will be discussed regarding benefits & killing kids.....

 

Never mind trying to brush the question away,so he couldnt have said "what have benefits got to do with killing six kids?"(kinda thing)

[StevieF8]

Never mind trying to brush the question away,so he couldnt have said "what have benefits got to do with killing six kids?"(kinda thing)

 

 

Im not Osborne,he could of said a number of things....If you want to question my opinion on this then I'll just paste the link from last week, I gave my views on his answer last then, I'm not doing it again this week as I haven't changed my mind.

[pablo]

Im not Osborne,he could of said a number of things....If you want to question my opinion on this then I'll just paste the link from last week, I gave my views on his answer last then, I'm not doing it again this week as I haven't changed my mind.

 

Would have been quicker typing an answer than all that wouldnt it?

The answer is yes,he could have straight batted the question,he never,end of

[MARYROSE02]

Hmmm. Mines and miners lost under Wilson - 406 / 315, 000 & Thatcher 146 / 173, 000. Go figure who REALLY killed the mining industry & way of life.

 

And regarding Thatcher's funeral it is same mob of left wing Nazis who disrupt every event they hate. I loathe them but in a democracy you have to put up with ratbags.

 

Why is Daily Succeed so popular with readers as opposed to ratbags. It represents the views of the majority of the middle classes - same reason The Sun is equally popular with the working classes. Go figure.

[Perthbum]

Would have been quicker typing an answer than all that wouldnt it?

The answer is yes,he could have straight batted the question,he never,end of

Because the bloke is an idiot and came out with what he truly belives, there are many like him it the tory party that just want benifits cut to the bare minimum to survive on no matter what peoples circumstances are, he could have said whats it got to do with benifits but he made a mistake in letting slip hs true thoughts....they are not known as the nasty party for

nothing.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Perthbum

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

When I worked in a certain area a few years back the saying in the town was "if they put a donkey in a red jacket on the town hall steps during an election the people there would still vote for it because of their political viewpoint." I didn't really believe that that could actually be the case until I see certain people repeatedly and unwaveringly spouting their political agendas on this thread. Oh what it must be like to be brainwashed and right all the time whatever the facts actually are. No point arguing the toss with people like that because even if any single fact of their belief system was ever proven to be false, even by one of their own, they would never believe it or change their stand-point. Best to let them just spout amongst themselves and live in their own little deluded worlds.

[StevieF8]

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/opinion-sharply-divide-margaret-thatcher

[Guest scrumpy]

Whats wrong with surviving on benefits?

As you know theres loads of working families, that are also survivng and working hard to keep everthing together.

Surley the working man should be better of than a non-working man?

[Flathead]

I didn't really believe that that could actually be the case until I see certain people repeatedly and unwaveringly spouting their political agendas on this thread. Oh what it must be like to be brainwashed and right all the time whatever the facts actually are. No point arguing the toss with people like that because even if any single fact of their belief system was ever proven to be false, even by one of their own, they would never believe it or change their stand-point. Best to let them just spout amongst themselves and live in their own little deluded worlds.

 

Do you really think that about Tories?

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

Do you really think that about Tories?

 

me thinks you are seeing this through a mirror as I mean just the reverse.... but I am not referring to every single person of that ilk.

or

you may have been trying to be a smarty-pants and just yanking my chain

[Flathead]

me thinks you are seeing this through a mirror as I mean just the reverse.... but I am not referring to every single person of that ilk.

or

you may have been trying to be a smarty-pants and just yanking my chain

Oh....it seems that you just described Tories perfectly

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

Oh....it seems that you just described Tories perfectly

 

and it seems that you just proved my point perfectly...

[Flathead]

and it seems that you just proved my point perfectly...

And you just proved mine

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

And you just proved mine

 

I am quite able to converse and accept other people's opinions, even change my point of view if a point can be made / proven well enough. Some who have posted just seem to see things as black / white ( I won't use red / blue as I am not just talking politically) and give the impression that whatever was said / proven there would be no chance in hell they could see anything other than their original opinion being correct. And this being the case it would be pointless to continue this and let you know you must be right. Although you obviously already know this anyway.

[Johndoe]

there would be no chance in hell they could see anything other than their original opinion being correct.

 

You may well be right. One of my kids asked me, "what's all the fuss about Maragaret Thatcher"?.....................now....................since leaving the employ of the TGWU and in getting older, I thought that I had 'swung to the right" but it seems not.

 

I got out all my old "lefty vinyl" and played some to him to let him "get a feel" for the times back then. I have quite a collection of works, and the ones (lyrics) by Ewan McColl and Peggy Seeger not only enlightened him, but reminded me of the "struggle to survive" back then, for many, and more importantly (for me), how much they fought the establishment and how thoroughly convinced that their cause was just and true.

 

Although I thought that I'd put those times "behind me", it seems not..................I suppose I just got selfish (if that's the word).................thought I didn't have a need to fight other folks' battles for 'em.................that my life was now OK, thank you? Those days were "dark" for many..................the looney left..................the fascist right..................it matters not a jot.................we tend to focus on the politics and the class and seem to lose sight of the individual...............who fights for them?

 

Was it a class war? Yes, I believe it was, and the damage done is irrepairable....................whole communities devastated for the "greater good" as some would have us believe................who are these "greater"? Certainly not the dosckers and miners who topped themselves, or the bruised and battered wives and kids who had to live with their once proud fathers who were now drunken, and despairing louts. Des Warren (one of the flying pickets) who died (it is argued) from the results of his treatment in prison...............placed there by an all tory jury and tried in a tory town (shrewsbury), where he didn't stand a chance of acquittal.

 

Yes, you're right, we might "calm" as we get older, and we might attempt to avoid the political debates that often arise about those times, but in my case, this debate has opened old wounds, and I will never deny my working class heritage, nor credit Thatcher with anything other than the decimation of working class spirit, working class values, working class families and communities. I will never see/accept the other side of the coin, and for the life of me, I cannot understand how those working class, who lived through those times, ever can.

 

Sorrry for the rant as it hasn't been thought through, and just 'spouted" as I feel (emotionally).

Edited April 11, 2013 by Johndoe

[Love Shoes]

Surley if anyone "chooses" a benefits lifestyle, it should be questioned?

Its not a choice, its a saftey net, isnt it?

 

 

That was the initial idea .... If what I was taught at uni is correct it was set up after the war to get people back on their feet, which was a good idea, but to spend a life on benefits is awful, and shows a terrible disrespect to each and every tax payer, in particular those on low wages, who are struggling as it is.

it is something IMO that no government is prepared to tackle whole heartedly I.e., say 5 years on benefits and that's your lot .... they just chip away slowly and in a lot of ways affect the worthy, not the source of the problem, it could be that they are terrified of rioting.

 

sadly many have chosen it over a career .... and then go crazy when the pot runs dry and the country can no longer afford high rents, free dental, council tax, prescriptions, furniture, the list is endless ...

 

i am not adverse to worthy people claiming state benefits, such as disabled people, those affected by new labours crass spending, I.e., people who have lost everything, but some people just choose a life if benefits because they can ... it's wrong and makes the working man / woman very bitter.

[VERYSTORMY]

you really are hard work,,remember the philpot case last week,,,i can say this idiot coming out with it again if there is troulble next week[h=1]Mick Philpott's benefits 'lifestyle' should be questioned, says Osborn[/h]

 

Even if, and that's a big if, the qoute is correct. The principle is correct. Benefits can not, must not and should not give a lifestyle. They are there for one reason. To provide a stop gap. The reason that areas such as disability benefits for the true disabled are not what they should be, is because of dicks like these and we all know there are thousands of them. Stealing money from the disabled.

[newjez]

I've been on benefits once or twice for short periods (both in Oz and the UK), and I can tell you they are not a safety net. My idea of benefits is that you should get everything straight up to support you when you get a job, and then all these things should be reduced. The reality seems to be very different. Initially, due to waiting periods and not knowing the system (and the systems are very complicated) you get very little. After a while, you start to get more and more. Whenever I've been on benefits (longest was three months) it's been at the point where I've got another job when they start to kick in. Benefits should give you three to six months to readjust your lifestyle. They should give you enough money to eat and pay the bills while you sell a house, move to a new area, get a new skill whatever.

 

They shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, unless you are disabled, old, or ill. Even if those things are true. You can't expect the govt to keep you in the lifestyle you lived before you became disabled, old, ill. That's what pensions and critical illness insurance are for.

 

Just for fun, work out the benefits a single mother with three kids working and earning £15000 and living and renting in the south east is entitled to. You will be amazed. How can we afford this? Sometimes I think the benefits system is there solely to prop up the housing market.

 

 

 

That was the initial idea .... If what I was taught at uni is correct it was set up after the war to get people back on their feet, which was a good idea, but to spend a life on benefits is awful, and shows a terrible disrespect to each and every tax payer, in particular those on low wages, who are struggling as it is.

it is something IMO that no government is prepared to tackle whole heartedly I.e., say 5 years on benefits and that's your lot .... they just chip away slowly and in a lot of ways affect the worthy, not the source of the problem, it could be that they are terrified of rioting.

 

sadly many have chosen it over a career .... and then go crazy when the pot runs dry and the country can no longer afford high rents, free dental, council tax, prescriptions, furniture, the list is endless ...

 

i am not adverse to worthy people claiming state benefits, such as disabled people, those affected by new labours crass spending, I.e., people who have lost everything, but some people just choose a life if benefits because they can ... it's wrong and makes the working man / woman very bitter.

Edited April 11, 2013 by newjez

[VERYSTORMY]

But how do you adjust to lifestyle? I some one is used to earning $10mil a year, do you suggest we give them that?

 

Also at what cost to a finite budget?

 

I've been on benefits once or twice for short periods (both in Oz and the UK), and I can tell you they are not a safety net. My idea of benefits is that you should get everything straight up to support you when you get a job, and then all these things should be reduced. The reality seems to be very different. Initially, due to waiting periods and not knowing the system (and the systems are very complicated) you get very little. After a while, you start to get more and more. Whenever I've been on benefits (longest was three months) it's been at the point where I've got another job when they start to kick in. Benefits should give you three to six months to readjust your lifestyle. They should give you enough money to eat and pay the bills while you sell a house, move to a new area, get a new skill whatever.

 

They shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, unless you are disabled, old, or ill. Even if those things are true. You can't expect the govt to keep you in the lifestyle you lived before you became disabled, old, ill. That's what pensions and critical illness insurance are for.

 

Just for fun, work out the benefits a single mother with three kids working and earning £15000 is entitled to. You will be amazed.

[VERYSTORMY]

I agree but she legitimised it as an acceptable lever of policy making that everyone subsequently tugged on harder and harder to try and make the merry go round go ever faster.

It was exactly the same way that she cut income taxes so that all subsequent taxation increases have been either NI or VAT increases which are the most unequal regressive forms of taxation , hitting the poorest harder rather than hitting the richest.

 

With little reason for the rises and were generally increased by labour than any one else.

[VERYSTORMY]

I think it has now all been said.

 

I have posted a range of FACTS. not some thing the left like very much, but they they are. I have been away for a few days so not seen what has been posted, but having got home and reviewed, all we see from the left are some rants with no evidence to back up their claims. Goodbye left. You lost.

[newjez]

I know what you are saying, but there is a lot of difference between selling your own house and having the bank selling it. It would be nice to have a little support so you could re organise your affairs. Yes there needs to be limits to the amount and to the times.

 

But how do you adjust to lifestyle? I some one is used to earning $10mil a year, do you suggest we give them that?

 

Also at what cost to a finite budget?