ChatterBank5 mins ago
Labour Lead At 7 Points
Thought Sqad may be interested !...Just to keep the pot boiling !
http://
Not much change to the LibDems or the ghastly UKIP, so this large lead seems to have all come from the Tories.
http://
Not much change to the LibDems or the ghastly UKIP, so this large lead seems to have all come from the Tories.
Answers
I think it is a question of trust Mikey. To be told that we are all in it together, see families and disabled people made destitute by their Dickensian austerity measures and then have some upper class twits claiming expenses for dredging their moat and fixing a leak under their tennis courts does smack of lying, immoral gits with double standards, not to...
07:15 Sun 11th May 2014
let us see what Cameron can do, i truly believe he is part of the problem however, many of the public see him as a Tory, uncaring of the common man, whoever that is, whilst lauding Milliband, who quite honestly isn't a class warrior, who would stand up for all the people, country,
we don't have many politicians with principles, even the old rogue LLoyd George had them, as did Disraeli, yet came with all sorts of baggage.
we don't have many politicians with principles, even the old rogue LLoyd George had them, as did Disraeli, yet came with all sorts of baggage.
“…families and disabled people made destitute by their Dickensian austerity measures”
Give me strength !!!
Have a little dig into history, kvalidir, before you make such fatuous, ridiculous remarks. Nobody in the UK is destitute as a result of policies of this government (for which, incidentally, I have no time whatsoever). All this government is trying to do (and not really succeeding) is to reduce the enormous burden placed on the taxpayer by an over generous benefits system, examples of which are to be seen all around every day. To describe these measure as "Dickensian" is beyond parody.
Just have a think for a few moments to understand why I make that claim. In the mid 19th Century:
There was no NHS for the government to interfere with
There were no benefits of any description to be trimmed
There was no minimum wage(in fact, many people had no wage whatsoever)
There was no "social" housing on which to have the under occupancy charge levied.
There was considerable use of child labour
Serious diseases (which became epidemics) were rife.
Living conditions - particularly in cities - were appalling
Read this where Dickens describes a visit he made to London's Canning Town:
http://
In case you cannot be bothered, among his observations:
"Rows of small houses...are built designedly and systematically with their backs to the marsh ditches which...are all stopped up at their outlet. Two or three yards of clay pipe "drain" each house into the open cesspool under its back windows."
"Ague [a form of malaria] is one of the most prevalent diseases of the district: fever abounds. When an epidemic comes into the place, it becomes serious in its form, and stays for months."
"Many select such a dwelling-place because they are already debased below the point of enmity to filth; poorer labourers live there, because they cannot afford to go further,"
Andrew Mearns, a social commentator of the time wrote:
"...tens of thousands are crowded together amidst horrors which call to mind what we have heard of the middle passage of the slave ship. To get into them you have to penetrate courts reeking with poisonous and malodorous gases arising from accumulations of sewage and refuse scattered in all directions"
Do you really expect us to believe that the minor adjustments to some benefits is reducing people to these levels of poverty, squalor and degradation?
If so, you must be having a laugh.
Give me strength !!!
Have a little dig into history, kvalidir, before you make such fatuous, ridiculous remarks. Nobody in the UK is destitute as a result of policies of this government (for which, incidentally, I have no time whatsoever). All this government is trying to do (and not really succeeding) is to reduce the enormous burden placed on the taxpayer by an over generous benefits system, examples of which are to be seen all around every day. To describe these measure as "Dickensian" is beyond parody.
Just have a think for a few moments to understand why I make that claim. In the mid 19th Century:
There was no NHS for the government to interfere with
There were no benefits of any description to be trimmed
There was no minimum wage(in fact, many people had no wage whatsoever)
There was no "social" housing on which to have the under occupancy charge levied.
There was considerable use of child labour
Serious diseases (which became epidemics) were rife.
Living conditions - particularly in cities - were appalling
Read this where Dickens describes a visit he made to London's Canning Town:
http://
In case you cannot be bothered, among his observations:
"Rows of small houses...are built designedly and systematically with their backs to the marsh ditches which...are all stopped up at their outlet. Two or three yards of clay pipe "drain" each house into the open cesspool under its back windows."
"Ague [a form of malaria] is one of the most prevalent diseases of the district: fever abounds. When an epidemic comes into the place, it becomes serious in its form, and stays for months."
"Many select such a dwelling-place because they are already debased below the point of enmity to filth; poorer labourers live there, because they cannot afford to go further,"
Andrew Mearns, a social commentator of the time wrote:
"...tens of thousands are crowded together amidst horrors which call to mind what we have heard of the middle passage of the slave ship. To get into them you have to penetrate courts reeking with poisonous and malodorous gases arising from accumulations of sewage and refuse scattered in all directions"
Do you really expect us to believe that the minor adjustments to some benefits is reducing people to these levels of poverty, squalor and degradation?
If so, you must be having a laugh.
I think it's you who are having a laugh NewJudge. You seek to ridicule facts by taking my choice of words literally. Perhaps you ought to invest in a dicitionary, as it's commonly known that 'Dickensian' means ' living or working conditions that fall below an acceptable standard'.
However I will enlighten you a to the dramatic effects your 'minor adjustments to the benefit system' have made.
1.75 million of the poorest families have seen a cut in their income in real monetary terms-source Oxfam
900,000 people used food banks last year an increase of 163%-source Trussell Trust.
13 million people are now living officially 'in poverty' (surviving on less than 60% of the median UK income) and HALF of those are WORKING.- source Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
That's a very broad and general bit of info for you without going into details about the many thousands of disabled people ATOS have victimised, people who have committed suicide because of cuts to their benefits when they are unable to work, people living without electricity (yes this really does happen, and frequently) so they can eat and the increase in mental health issues amongst the unemployed and people claiming DLA since the coalition came to power (presumably because of the stress their lives now involve.)
We are going backwards as a society, castigating the old, the poor, the disabled, as well as those who have simply had the misfortune to be long term unemployed ( often for reasons completely beyond their control).
I would be far far happier if the government concentrated their efforts into dealing with high scale Tax avoidance rather than persecuting those claiming benefits.
Welfare fraud amounted to 0.7% of welfare expenditure- being £1.2bn.
Ironically underpayments to legitimate claimants amounted to £1.3 bn.
The government sends a great deal of time trumpeting about benefit cheats however the missing tax bill stands at £30bn every year. That's £30bn worth of fraud on the part of working people-many of them nice middle class working people who don't consider themselves criminals for knocking a few quid off their tax return, but would happily burn a single mother at the stake if she's on benefits.
We need to get things into perspective- and stop these Dickensian ( yes I used it again because it is perfectly applicable) measures being implemented against our already over stretched poor.
However I will enlighten you a to the dramatic effects your 'minor adjustments to the benefit system' have made.
1.75 million of the poorest families have seen a cut in their income in real monetary terms-source Oxfam
900,000 people used food banks last year an increase of 163%-source Trussell Trust.
13 million people are now living officially 'in poverty' (surviving on less than 60% of the median UK income) and HALF of those are WORKING.- source Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
That's a very broad and general bit of info for you without going into details about the many thousands of disabled people ATOS have victimised, people who have committed suicide because of cuts to their benefits when they are unable to work, people living without electricity (yes this really does happen, and frequently) so they can eat and the increase in mental health issues amongst the unemployed and people claiming DLA since the coalition came to power (presumably because of the stress their lives now involve.)
We are going backwards as a society, castigating the old, the poor, the disabled, as well as those who have simply had the misfortune to be long term unemployed ( often for reasons completely beyond their control).
I would be far far happier if the government concentrated their efforts into dealing with high scale Tax avoidance rather than persecuting those claiming benefits.
Welfare fraud amounted to 0.7% of welfare expenditure- being £1.2bn.
Ironically underpayments to legitimate claimants amounted to £1.3 bn.
The government sends a great deal of time trumpeting about benefit cheats however the missing tax bill stands at £30bn every year. That's £30bn worth of fraud on the part of working people-many of them nice middle class working people who don't consider themselves criminals for knocking a few quid off their tax return, but would happily burn a single mother at the stake if she's on benefits.
We need to get things into perspective- and stop these Dickensian ( yes I used it again because it is perfectly applicable) measures being implemented against our already over stretched poor.
Latest Posts
Is It Feasible To End I C E Car Sales By...
News29 mins ago
Road rules31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
