Are labour voters the worst losers in the history of the world?

[BigGully]

Ah, well i'm still not sure if your obtuseness comes from a blinkered mindset, or it is deliberate trolling.

However...

I think many people that use food banks have had their benefits withdrawn or cut. David has cited an example of this, the fact that you have continued to ignore this fact doesn't bode well for a good outcome to this conversation.

Your apparent presumption that they have 'spunked' their money shows a sheltered or naive attitude, at best you are making assumptions. Do you know anyone that uses a food bank? Again David has provided an example that you continue to conveniently ignore.

At least you have the good sense to not follow up on your flawed logic from earlier posts, maybe there is hope for you! (that most of the country supports what has been going on in the benefit system).

You still seem to be swerving the point of benefit withdrawal. Which seems to be another gaping logical hole in your argument. I would argue that benefit withdrawal is part of the current system, it's been used by the coalition as a rather broad club, that has admittedly pushed more into work but also caught out many vulnerable too.

Don't get me wrong, benefits i think are at a level where people can survive, if only just, and as an underclass. Of course there are examples where the system is abused, but there are more examples of where those in need aren't getting the support they need. Again (to labour the point) David has cited examples that you ignore.

Perhaps i am missing something, could you expand as to why you desire the examples to be current benefits claimants.

I would ask you again to consider why the use of food banks have risen over the last 5 years, and whether benefit withdrawal has had an impact on this.

Ah right benefit removal is the key, my wife works in education and is privvy to quite alot of detail that many others wouldnt get, dont worry she doesnt come home and blurt out everything she is involved in.

In all the years she has been privvy peoples different social situations, she has has seen quiet a few spunk their many £1000's rent money without sanction and only a couple prosecuted for claiming when they shouldnt be, but she has never once heard of anyone having their valid benefit withdrawn, not once.

So your magic bullet to somehow try and paint benefit responsibility as just the nasty Tories is rubbish.

You are trying to get off the benefit ladder because we know and can check the money given, issues relating to not claiming is another issue entirely.

 

[ALBION28]

Answer to the question is....no. Like me a lot of people are fearful of a Conservative Government. Fear they will continue to demolish the best of British. The NHS, quality education free for all, a welfare state that protects all not just pensioners, maintaining the safety of our nation with adequate emergency services and military. Sadness, that we cannot unite as a nation to build a Britain that is fair and just for all. With more of the same old cuts and increasing national debt to look forward to guess I will need really need a boost from a successful Albion.

 

[HH Brighton]

I am struggling to think of a more bitter set of people. They are making Fergie, Mourinho and Nigel Adkins look gracious.

Its not being bitter is it but I can't remember such reaction to a party winning an election. Where are these Tory voters, perhaps its the circle I move in, perhaps it the stigma associated with voting Tory and no one wants to admit it. Anyway the new ministers are giving us something to laugh about and I'm sure every Tory voter would agree with these master stroke appointments.

Minister for equality who voted against gay marriage http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...5685012?fb_ref=Default#ICID=sharebar_facebook


New minister for disabled strongly against disability benefits and human rights http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/ne...-against-disability-benefits-and-human-rights

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Ah right benefit removal is the key, my wife works in education and is privvy to quite alot of detail that many others wouldnt get, dont worry she doesnt come home and blurt out everything she is involved in.

In all the years she has been privvy peoples different social situations, she has has seen quiet a few spunk their many £1000's rent money without sanction and only a couple prosecuted for claiming when they shouldnt be, but she has never once heard of anyone having their valid benefit withdrawn, not once.

So your magic bullet to somehow try and paint benefit responsibility as just the nasty Tories is rubbish.

Ah, a couple of things here.

Nice and dismissive post from you again.

I think benefit withdrawal is the key, you've been given an example on this thread, i personally know of others. You've ignored this example, and continue to do so. Ask your wife if she knows of any from her pastoral work, i expect she does. It seems to me that many with mental illness or other invisible diseases got hit by benefit withdrawal i.e. the vulnerable.

Secondly, i haven't refered to benefit withdrawal directly to the cons, i posted about the coalition. I'm spotting a pattern on assumptions.

It would appear to me that your biased posts say more about you than the reality of the situation. I'm glad for you that you have had a sheltered and privileged life, and can look down on those on benefits. I guess some of 'them' 'deserve' to be looked down upon. The reality of the situation though is that many vulnerable people have slipped through the cracks too.

The fact that you are jumping defensively to support the current benefit system and the con party with logical holes in your arguments speaks to me of an emotion behind this. Perhaps you are feeling guilty? There's no need, it's not your fault.
Your arguments have seemed to be logically flawed, as if you are clutching at straws. This leads me to assume that you just don't know about the situation on the ground. The fact that have continually ignored examples put up by a lay preacher, that has probably more experience of the situation than us, would indicate this. Ask your wife about it, it's likely that she will know of examples.

Let me put it this way, i'm glad those currently suffering doesn't affect you, i'm a little sad as to your presumptions that people that use food banks have spunked their money on champagne and heroine, rather than having 'legitimate' benefit cut or withdrawn.

There is a point though where this will affect you or the ones you love, as more desperate people live in our communities, their impact is inevitable.

I'd ask you to think about why you are jumping to defend the con party (especially as it was a coalition that put in the current benefits system) and what emotion is driving you to ignore examples that have been shown to you.

For the record i'm quite philosophical about the cons coming into power, but only time will tell whether my hopefulness is misplaced.

 

[BLOCK F]

Answer to the question is....no. Like me a lot of people are fearful of a Conservative Government. Fear they will continue to demolish the best of British. The NHS, quality education free for all, a welfare state that protects all not just pensioners, maintaining the safety of our nation with adequate emergency services and military. Sadness, that we cannot unite as a nation to build a Britain that is fair and just for all. With more of the same old cuts and increasing national debt to look forward to guess I will need really need a boost from a successful Albion.

Cheer up Albion, things could be a lot worse, Labour might have won the election and been in Government now, propped up by a party who certainly don't want to unite as a nation.
We would have had an inadequate PM and Ed Balls as Chancellor.Not too sure the SNP would be too keen on maintaining adequate military services.Don't be silly,why should the Conservatives want to demolish the NHS?............wouldn't exactly be a vote winner would it?Tory voters get ill too! They also want to improve education,not demolish it.What would be the point? Who would benefit?....tory voters are generally pretty keen on education for their offspring. As for the welfare state, it has to be reformed (even Labour agree) so that the people who really need help continue to receive it, and indeed ,receive more help where necessary.The minority who possibly take advantage of the system,will hopefully be pointed in the right direction and see the error of their ways and helped to get employment. I admit this is going to be a mighty problem as many of these bods are unskilled and probably not ideal employees.This has always been a problem for Government of any persuasion.Therein lies the rub, it must be made more worthwhile to work, than not, for those that are unwilling to do so.Those that are unable to work, should continue to receive adequate benefits.
I reckon the Tories will do a decent job in Government and I believe Labour have lost the plot.......temporarily, I hope.
As for the Albion, I am not at all confident of success next season; but we can dream.

 

[Giraffe]

Great article from a labour voter writing for the telegraph.

Ashamed of the whining lefties:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hinging-why-the-Left-are-such-bad-losers.html

 

[BadFish]

Why are Conservative supporters so angry? You won the election smile, have a laugh, chill out. everything in your garden is going to be rosy.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Its not being bitter is it but I can't remember such reaction to a party winning an election. Where are these Tory voters, perhaps its the circle I move in, perhaps it the stigma associated with voting Tory and no one wants to admit it. Anyway the new ministers are giving us something to laugh about and I'm sure every Tory voter would agree with these master stroke appointments.

Minister for equality who voted against gay marriage http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...5685012?fb_ref=Default#ICID=sharebar_facebook


New minister for disabled strongly against disability benefits and human rights http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/ne...-against-disability-benefits-and-human-rights

How do you vote very strongly against, sort of stomp as you enter the no chamber

 

[Stato]

How do you vote very strongly against, sort of stomp as you enter the no chamber

I originally posted a sarcastic comment, but have seen that your reference is to the text in the article. If you drill down to 'details' you'll see that 'voted very strongly against' means voted against in several votes on the issue.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

It doesn't say 'vote strongly against.' Apart from that, great gag.

Yes it does on the benefits one

 

[W.C.]

I'm just saying there's no point in blaming the tories when the opposition are no better. Maybe you think the opposition are better, because this isn't the Bliar/Brown years, but I don't think they can hide behind that defence. If either party felt the press needed changing, then they should chance it.

I think they should look at changing the press, but on that small point, no, I don't think that bit is the problem. Murdoch was supporting the tories with or without the donation, and I don't see what difference it makes between him then giving a donation or tv personality Alan Sugar giving it.

I don't think the opposition would be that much better, however, I hoped (that's the key, I don't know do I?) they might be a slight improvement, and in that slight improvement some people's lives may be made better. I also hoped they might be more amenable to the needs of the general public. Those changes won't affect me in any way (touch wood I don't get sick/injured) but I hoped they would improve the lot of some people in the UK.

I would love to see the press changed, I can not stand to see Murdoch owning as much as he does and using them for his own political i.e. business ends. So for that too, I voted against the Tories as Miliband said he would do something about it.

About the donations, I wasn't talking about Murdoch, but that Express guy who donated to UKIP then told everyone via his paper to vote for them. I didn't mention UKIP because I didn't want to get in to party bollocks. But, it's crazy that our newspapers are simply being used to tell people who to vote for on the whim of their owners.
Alan Sugar doesn't publish a daily paper where he tells people to vote for the party he supports.
Anyway I'd like to see all these private donations stopped or at least capped substantially. A level playing field for all parties. Like that will ever happen.

 

[Rod Marsh]

I don't think the opposition would be that much better, however, I hoped (that's the key, I don't know do I?) they might be a slight improvement, and in that slight improvement some people's lives may be made better. I also hoped they might be more amenable to the needs of the general public. Those changes won't affect me in any way (touch wood I don't get sick/injured) but I hoped they would improve the lot of some people in the UK.

I would love to see the press changed, I can not stand to see Murdoch owning as much as he does and using them for his own political i.e. business ends. So for that too, I voted against the Tories as Miliband said he would do something about it.

About the donations, I wasn't talking about Murdoch, but that Express guy who donated to UKIP then told everyone via his paper to vote for them. I didn't mention UKIP because I didn't want to get in to party bollocks. But, it's crazy that our newspapers are simply being used to tell people who to vote for on the whim of their owners.
Alan Sugar doesn't publish a daily paper where he tells people to vote for the party he supports.
Anyway I'd like to see all these private donations stopped or at least capped substantially. A level playing field for all parties. Like that will ever happen.

Alan Sugar does however have 4.2M followers on twitter. Some people would argue he's reaching a larger % of the population that the SUN newspaper. Social media's impact in general elections is growing year by year.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Food banks serve a purpose for those that are hungry, to some extent it is totally irrelevant why they might be hungry, whether they have spunked their benefits on heroine or champagne and each are genuinely hungry then each should freely access any food-banks, well if it was my food bank anyway.

But it neednt follow that it is an indication of poverty or that their benefits are not at a liveable level, it shouldnt be confused with nasty Tories or feckless Socialists, its a side issue serving a genuine need for some people.

Beyond the complexities of homelessness you can if you wish clearly state an example of how someone within the benefit system might then need the added benefit of using a food bank ?

People need to be referred to food banks, normally by being given vouchers by a sensible and serious referring agency - social services, voluntary organisations, churches, faith organisations and the like. These are not given lightly and only in cases of genuine need. Are you like the large number of Tory MPs who seem to think they are just things people can turn up to because they are just a bit short of cash this week? They are for use in emergencies. And they are normally only available for a fairly short period of time, like 3 weeks. Most people who go to them are desperate and (unnecessarily) ashamed.

And as for your comment elsewhere about your wife never having come across anyone who has had their benefits removed unfairly, you must move in very privileged circles. Do you live in Kensington? Have you not heard or read the stories of people being sanctioned because they did not turn up to the job centre because they were at a job interview, of which they had informed the authorities and the like.

I can remember having a conversation with a senior employee at the main job centre in Southampton shortly after Tony Blair first got in in 1997. She said they felt liberated because the emphasis had changed from finding ways to stop people receiving benefits to one of trying to help people who need help.

And that would not mean blindly helping people to remain crackheads or alcoholics or whatever. They would still be seeking to find ways to instil the work ethic, get people back on track, bring some discipline in to the life of young people so that they do become able to get up in time to go for a job at 8.30am or whatever, if they are not capable of doing so.

But that sort of support costs money........ But it can also work.

 

[Ernest]

Maybe we were right

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32722821

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't think the opposition would be that much better, however, I hoped (that's the key, I don't know do I?)

You must be one of the few NSC members that don't have a crystal ball

it's crazy that our newspapers are simply being used to tell people who to vote for on the whim of their owners.

Unfortunately I don't think we can stop that. We don't want the whole press to stop holding the parties to account, so we can't control what they say. But to be honest, that matters less than it used to now that we all have access to online information.

 

[peterward]

Unfortunately I don't think we can stop that. We don't want the whole press to stop holding the parties to account, so we can't control what they say. But to be honest, that matters less than it used to now that we all have access to online information.

this.

Since when does anyone force any individual to either buy or read the sun or the times? This whole argument is typically disingenuous. Alastair Campbell flipped his lid and called for the sun to be reined in after publishing the bacon sarnie pic again..... but the Daily Mirror was voted the most bias and partisan rag in the UK? Will the left try and curb the Mirror ?
The Sun supported Labour for 11 years, was a single word mentioned then about reining in Murdoch? not one..... I have no doubt the sun may also again support Labour again the UK, if it moves to the centre, It supported the leftist SNP in Scotland, wheras the Mirror would never ever be anything other than pro Labour.

Naysayers are hypocritcal bad losers who are nothing more than empty vessels trying to make noise....

Freedom of press is essential, this is not Moscow. Dont read them if you dont like them, nobody forces you to

 

[W.C.]

Alan Sugar does however have 4.2M followers on twitter. Some people would argue he's reaching a larger % of the population that the SUN newspaper. Social media's impact in general elections is growing year by year.

Good point. I don't follow him myself, I guess he did encourage people to vote Labour then?

 

[W.C.]

You must be one of the few NSC members that don't have a crystal ball

Unfortunately I don't think we can stop that. We don't want the whole press to stop holding the parties to account, so we can't control what they say. But to be honest, that matters less than it used to now that we all have access to online information.

You're probably right. I still think it's a massive shame the state our print press has come to though.

 

[Triggaaar]

You're probably right. I still think it's a massive shame the state our print press has come to though.

I think my comment reads like I don't think they have much influence now, but I think they do, just less than before, that's all. I think there's an argument that families shouldn't own more than one paper, but apart from that, I'm not sure what we can do, the press needs to be free. What was Miliband going to do?

The real problem is just how stupid the public are.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Maybe we were right

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32722821

He maybe right but Robert Preston is very odd man.