Harming children for no good reason

[Judy in the sky]

it was Labours incessant drive to tell the supposed poor that they'd be looked after from cradle to the grave if they voted for them, that caused all the problems. Vote for us, and we'll give you benefits, Vote for us, and we'll up your disabled rate. Vote for us, and because you're disabled (even slightly) we'll give you a brand new car. Keep voting for us, and we'll keep giving you handouts, even if it drags the country down to the lowest possible level.

I'm convinced that Labour want the whole country dependent upon the state. Either through benefits or by nationalisation of industry.

 

[Roger928]

You really are so badly informed it's unreal. The real scandal is that you have NO IDEA ON ECONOMICS -none whatsoever.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

If you bother to read the whole article, there is a link to the source data from House of Commons Library.

Another left wing loon posting propaganda links.
And murphy writes for the guardian. Nuff said.

 

[noseall]

Another left wing loon posting propaganda links.

Does not mean they are inaccurate or untrue. In fact, if you read the figures, the Left Wing Loon actually tries his hardest to try and massage the figures in favour of the Tories, but is unable to.

Care to dispute them Roger the Liar/Racist/Fatasist?

 

[Doggit]

Try this then. It's not about the figures, but how you portray them.

 

[noseall]

Try this then. It's not about the figures, but how you portray them.

Those figures show that recent (Labour and Tory) governments borrow proportionally more than earlier governments because of economic growth. And?

It does not dispute the fact that Tories historically borrow more than Labour.

 

[Doggit]

No, but but it puts a more realistic figure on the borrowing, rather than Richard Murphys more blatant exageration. But as I've said earlier, the Tories invariably have to borrow more to try and correct the mess created by Labours profligate spending.

 

[noseall]

Try this then. It's not about the figures, but how you portray them.

Are you disputing whether the Tories borrow more then Labour?

 

[noseall]

No, but but it puts a more realistic figure on the borrowing, rather than Richard Murphys more blatant exageration. But as I've said earlier, the Tories invariably have to borrow more to try and correct the mess created by Labours profligate spending.

It also reinforces the fact Roger is in fact a liar.

 

[noseall]

than Richard Murphys more blatant exageration.

Show me the exaggeration in the table below or indeed show me the exaggeration in any of his figures please.

 

[HawkEye244]

these threads are just cancer, would be better for this forum if political discussion was banned from general

 

[securespark]

OTOH, you could say that posters show their true colours (no pun intended) when they post on these threads.

 

[big-all]

Difficult, but not impossible; and it just depends on what sort of lifestyle you want. And benefits shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, it should be a situation you're in till you can get yourself out of it.

But as many on benefits enjoy doing nothing, they do black market stuff to supplement the "I'll stay at home culture". A lot of the single mums, hold Anne Summers parties, do Avon sales and all sorts of things. The younger ones seem to deal in pills and stuff. The pregnancy rate dropped recently, and one thought is that kids no longer get an automatic entitlement to a 2 bed flat. It was also thought that social media had played a part, and there seems to be a slight drop in the areas that don't teach sex education, but I agree, it's a complicated situation.

But I think a telling scenario, is a school friend of 16 year old daughter, who is having issues with her parents, and having heard both sides of the argument it's just normal growing up rebelion stuff; except social services and her councellor have basically told her that if she gets pregnant, then they'd have to rehouse her in her own flat.

no healthy single person will get any offer off accommodation as they wont have enough points
there only option is to find there own accommodation within the maximum allowed or pay the difference which is impossible on unemployment benefits
remember the bedroom tax only applies to unemployed people
just add there will be the very odd occasion where there may be a one person flat available but very very few and far between

 

[transam]

I'm convinced that Labour want the whole country dependent upon the state. Either through benefits or by nationalisation of industry.

they are anti self employed.

I recall when

u drove a car built by the state

Steel used to build car was owned by the state

telephone company owned the state

coal industry was owned by the stste

Leccy u used was owned by the stste

gas u used owned by the state

water out the tap owned by the state

If you went abroad on a plane it was owned by the stste

travelled on a train it was owned by the state

Booked a holiday via thomas cook it was owned by the state


imho water should be nationlised again , the old british gas company was a very good company imho so that should go back into state owner ship

and may be the railways ??????

 

[ajstoneservices]

And the country was in a right state.

 

[Doggit]

there only option is to find there own accommodation within the maximum allowed or pay the difference which is impossible on unemployment benefits

The working tenants flat share nowadays. I have three Russians in one flat, and am advising 2 other tenants to get a flatmates as well. And the unemployed often end up in HMOs. They're the ones that learn to live within their means.

remember the bedroom tax only applies to unemployed people

And what has that got to do with the price of fish. And it's irrelevant here as well.