George Osborne,does he have a point ?

[Bold Seagull]

http://newsthump.com/2013/04/04/daily-mail-apologises-for-missing-link-between-inherited-wealth-and-murdering-people/

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Given that the case has quite clearly highlighted that the kids were seen as routes to benefits and bigger houses in purely welfare terms I think he does have a point. Is it right that the state agrees to keep giving more and more money and bigger and bigger houses every time someone breeds? Anyone thinking that there aren't people having kids or fighting over custody of kids (as in this case) at least partly in order to secure benefits is naive in the extreme. I don't think anyone is trying to suggest its any more than a small minority of absolute scum. If I was a minister I'd be very frustrated that every time I tried to open up a debate about where the system clearly is either unfair, or supporting lifestyles that are clearly to the detriment of the country and the community everyone screamed at me that I was trying to slur everyone on benefits, I should live on £53 a week etc. The crap quality of the political parties in this country is a direct reflection of the crap standard of debate and, frankly, lack of interest from most of the public in having any sort of sensible debate about anything. That's why we have a welfare state we can't afford, a healthcare system not built to cover the costs of modern medicine and an ageing population, a pension/elderly care time bomb and crap competitiveness versus other major world economies (including a much lazier and less well qualified workforce in key fields like science and technology than many emerging economies) and no one doing anything ambitious to correct the problems.

However, none of that excuses the fact that quoting an example where an evil man and his dumb bitch of a partner have just killed a load of kids, is callous, insensitive, idiotic and probably political suicide. In the days of social media driven hysteria I wouldn't be surprised if he loses his job on this.

Totally agree.

What shocked me more was the interview I heard on the radio coming home from the game on Tuesday. They interviewed the local vicar who knew and visited the scum Philpot whilst in custody and he stated he would continue to visit him. When asked he even said he would forgive him for his actions as this would enable him to come to terms with his actions and accept his fate. How the hell could any, ANY, right minded person ever forgive this being, is beyond me. These people representing the church are screwed up.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Stop talking drivel - there are a handful of families in the UK with families that size that live on benefits. In this case the women in the family were actually working. To play politics with the death of children is disgusting. The current government is waging war on some of the most vulnerable people in our country and lowering the living standards of most of us while handing out tax cuts to the wealthiest. The current crisis was not created by working people but it is the many rather than the fat cat few that are paying for it.

Here we go again...political envy and class war....do you think that multi-millionaire Blair cared for the working class...he pretended too because he was bank rolled by the unions...why be jealous of someone who has got to uni by any means...class war is unfortunately the disease of this country...there will always be somebody at the top...we have had a share of so called working class heroes at the top and they were no better than the so called posh....yes I did like Churchill... he put the country first...he made mistakes...Dardenelles.. but he thought if the country was safe the people were safe...what has Blair got to brag about.

 

[brakespear]

I have to agree with Ed Balls....I think using Philpott's actions to attack an entirely separate section of society is pretty lazy stuff.

On a side note, I can't think of any politician, past or present, during my lifetime that I loathe more than Gideon.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Given that the case has quite clearly highlighted that the kids were seen as routes to benefits and bigger houses in purely welfare terms I think he does have a point. Is it right that the state agrees to keep giving more and more money and bigger and bigger houses every time someone breeds? Anyone thinking that there aren't people having kids or fighting over custody of kids (as in this case) at least partly in order to secure benefits is naive in the extreme.

This is all true of course, but it can't be brought up as a result of someone burning their own children because you end up looking like a ****, as george is finding out.

 

[um bongo molongo]

I have to agree with Ed Balls....I think using Philpott's actions to attack an entirely separate section of society is pretty lazy stuff.

On a side note, I can't think of any politician, past or present, during my lifetime that I loathe more than Gideon.

Ed Balls? Choosing between him and George as chancellor is a bit like choosing which one of jedwood you'd rather have running the country

 

[drew]

Which part of his post is incorrect ?

It's the context that is relevant.

he was asked fhe question wbether the philpotts were a product of tbe benefit system , and he answered that there needs to be a discussion whether these sort of lifesgyles should e funded , whicb there does , because they shouldn't.

And by answering he has planted the suggesting that he believes they are a product of the welfare system and therefore using the deaths of 6 kids to support his own views of reform for the system.

Fortunately there have been plenty of posters giving reasons as to why suggesting that Philpott and his actions are a result of the welfare state is moronic.

Given that the case has quite clearly highlighted that the kids were seen as routes to benefits and bigger houses in purely welfare terms I think he does have a point. Is it right that the state agrees to keep giving more and more money and bigger and bigger houses every time someone breeds? Anyone thinking that there aren't people having kids or fighting over custody of kids (as in this case) at least partly in order to secure benefits is naive in the extreme. I don't think anyone is trying to suggest its any more than a small minority of absolute scum. If I was a minister I'd be very frustrated that every time I tried to open up a debate about where the system clearly is either unfair, or supporting lifestyles that are clearly to the detriment of the country and the community everyone screamed at me that I was trying to slur everyone on benefits, I should live on £53 a week etc. The crap quality of the political parties in this country is a direct reflection of the crap standard of debate and, frankly, lack of interest from most of the public in having any sort of sensible debate about anything. That's why we have a welfare state we can't afford, a healthcare system not built to cover the costs of modern medicine and an ageing population, a pension/elderly care time bomb and crap competitiveness versus other major world economies (including a much lazier and less well qualified workforce in key fields like science and technology than many emerging economies) and no one doing anything ambitious to correct the problems.

However, none of that excuses the fact that quoting an example where an evil man and his dumb bitch of a partner have just killed a load of kids, is callous, insensitive, idiotic and probably political suicide. In the days of social media driven hysteria I wouldn't be surprised if he loses his job on this.

But the problem is that you are allowing the actions of a minority to dictate policy that affects the majority. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome. Perhaps you are from the school that we should allow millions of Africans to starve and suffer preventable disease because 0.01% of aid is syphoned off to corrupt officials and therefore there shouldn't be aid. Maybe because some people binge drink and start fights, everyone on a saturday night should be restricted to only two drinks. This list of stupid punitive measures could go on and on.

If Osbourne wants to sort out the welfare state then the first thing is to introduce means testing for all benefits (common sense means testing that is, not like the crap they introduced with regards to child benefit where one family on £98k don't lose the benefit and another on £51k do!). Pensions could be means tested and benefits should only be payable to residents of the country so all those living overseas don't get it. Pensioners in Spain shouldn't get a the winter fuel allowance. But of course, the pensioners that financially don't need the winter fuel allowance are of course probably tory voters in the main!!!!

 

[brakespear]

Ed Balls? Choosing between him and George as chancellor is a bit like choosing which one of jedwood you'd rather have running the country

Not for me.

 

[um bongo molongo]

This is all true of course, but it can't be brought up as a result of someone burning their own children because you end up looking like a ****, as george is finding out.

Exactly the point I made at the end of the same post - I genuinely think the way outrage builds on social media now (usually when people haven't been even as much of a thick google as he has eg Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross) this could end in an apology at best for him, and at worst a resignation or "reshuffle". If you can be made to resign for telling a jumped up plod to stop being a dick and let you through the open gate in front of you, you certainly could be over this, even if you are bessie mates with the boss

 

[beorhthelm]

Ed Balls? Choosing between him and George as chancellor is a bit like choosing which one of jedwood you'd rather have running the country

i'd chose Jedwood on balance.

 

[um bongo molongo]

It's the context that is relevant.

And by answering he has planted the suggesting that he believes they are a product of the welfare system and therefore using the deaths of 6 kids to support his own views of reform for the system.

Fortunately there have been plenty of posters giving reasons as to why suggesting that Philpott and his actions are a result of the welfare state is moronic.



But the problem is that you are allowing the actions of a minority to dictate policy that affects the majority. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome. Perhaps you are from the school that we should allow millions of Africans to starve and suffer preventable disease because 0.01% of aid is syphoned off to corrupt officials and therefore there shouldn't be aid. Maybe because some people binge drink and start fights, everyone on a saturday night should be restricted to only two drinks. This list of stupid punitive measures could go on and on.

If Osbourne wants to sort out the welfare state then the first thing is to introduce means testing for all benefits (common sense means testing that is, not like the crap they introduced with regards to child benefit where one family on £98k don't lose the benefit and another on £51k do!). Pensions could be means tested and benefits should only be payable to residents of the country so all those living overseas don't get it. Pensioners in Spain shouldn't get a the winter fuel allowance. But of course, the pensioners that financially don't need the winter fuel allowance are of course probably tory voters in the main!!!!

Not at all, but if people refuse to rationally discuss when a system is being openly abused by some (even a minority), and can be clearly demonstrated to drive some negative behaviours/outcomes in terms of generations of benefit reliance within families (again in only some cases) then it will never be improved.

To use your odd analogy, if you knew a lot of money you intended to go to starving kids was being siphoned off by some corrupt officials would you continue just to plough the money in or would you try to find a better way to get the money to the people who really need it?

 

[um bongo molongo]

Not for me.

I'm pleased for you that you've only got a couple of years to wait for him and the wrong brother to come in and sort it all out then. For me, we're completely googled until we wake up and realise we've got bigger problems than which of two very similar and equally ineffective/incompetent parties are in power.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

George Osborne should know all about such things. He understands low income people and those in despair. Having the best possible education and being an heir to a multi-million pound fortune is the best experience.

He also knows what it's like to have job insecurity being on a roving 5 year contract in one of the safest seats in the country.....

Actually, what's Martin Bell's number ?....

 

[1066familyman]

Probably the most cynical and disgusting peice of political opportunism in my lifetime, I think and hope that it will backfire big time, children died for Christ sake and all that idiot can do is make a point that he was on benefits.
Its worse than that labour woman saying its a good day to announce unpopular policy the day that Diana died.

Exactly this. Using the tragic deaths of these children for political ends is shameful and disgusting and makes me feel sick to the stomach. I feel the same about the sections of the media that have acted in the same way.

 

[um bongo molongo]

It's the context that is relevant.

And by answering he has planted the suggesting that he believes they are a product of the welfare system and therefore using the deaths of 6 kids to support his own views of reform for the system.

Fortunately there have been plenty of posters giving reasons as to why suggesting that Philpott and his actions are a result of the welfare state is moronic.



But the problem is that you are allowing the actions of a minority to dictate policy that affects the majority. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome. Perhaps you are from the school that we should allow millions of Africans to starve and suffer preventable disease because 0.01% of aid is syphoned off to corrupt officials and therefore there shouldn't be aid. Maybe because some people binge drink and start fights, everyone on a saturday night should be restricted to only two drinks. This list of stupid punitive measures could go on and on.

If Osbourne wants to sort out the welfare state then the first thing is to introduce means testing for all benefits (common sense means testing that is, not like the crap they introduced with regards to child benefit where one family on £98k don't lose the benefit and another on £51k do!). Pensions could be means tested and benefits should only be payable to residents of the country so all those living overseas don't get it. Pensioners in Spain shouldn't get a the winter fuel allowance. But of course, the pensioners that financially don't need the winter fuel allowance are of course probably tory voters in the main!!!!

Btw, I completely agree on pensions - but unfortunately the politicians know the minute they mention pensions/winter fuel allowances the press will wheel out the images of old ladies freezing in their homes and the public will tut and moan about politicians and duck houses etc. the fact is there are poor old people who need a lot of help, a lot that need a bit of help, and plenty who've done very nicely thank you through the boom years and probably don't need their fuel allowance or free bus pass as they nip off for 6 weeks to tour Tuscany. That pensioners are always off limits in welfare discussions is ridiculous, but again I can't help feeling that we, the public, are to blame if we refuse to let any sort of sensible debate about it emerge before it descends into 'typical Tories/labour', 'they're all bent/corrupt/the same', 'I blame the bankers'

 

[Benson]

Probably the most cynical and disgusting peice of political opportunism in my lifetime, I think and hope that it will backfire big time, children died for Christ sake and all that idiot can do is make a point that he was on benefits.
Its worse than that labour woman saying its a good day to announce unpopular policy the day that Diana died.

I totally agree about the first part of your post, but I think think the Jo Moore quote is attributed to 9/11.

 

[clapham_gull]

These people representing the church are screwed up.

No they aren't in this case. Simply doing what most of us can't face to do.

I'm not religious and can criticise the church/religion on a number of issues. But I cannot criticise forgiveness.

If we were all capable of that the world would be a much happier place.

 

[brakespear]

I'm pleased for you that you've only got a couple of years to wait for him and the wrong brother to come in and sort it all out then. For me, we're completely googled until we wake up and realise we've got bigger problems than which of two very similar and equally ineffective/incompetent parties are in power.

Well, that's my perogative Now if we can get back to Gideon using the death of six children to berate the welfare state...

 

[1066familyman]

No they aren't in this case. Simply doing what most of us can't face to do.

I'm not religious and can criticise the church/religion on a number of issues. But I cannot criticise forgiveness.

If we were all capable of that the world would be a much happier place.

I listened to an in depth interview with their local Catholic priest on the radio the other night. I've personally very little time for the Catholic church as an institution but the words of this man was like a breath of fresh air in a sick world. I agree with you entirely, the world needs more of this approach, much much more.

 

[drew]

Not at all, but if people refuse to rationally discuss when a system is being openly abused by some (even a minority), and can be clearly demonstrated to drive some negative behaviours/outcomes in terms of generations of benefit reliance within families (again in only some cases) then it will never be improved.

To use your odd analogy, if you knew a lot of money you intended to go to starving kids was being siphoned off by some corrupt officials would you continue just to plough the money in or would you try to find a better way to get the money to the people who really need it?

You would find a way to make sure more of the money gets to the right place but you would cut of the supply in the meantime. Also, in my analogy, the amount was a small percentage where as you switch it around to suggest a lot. Puts a different perspective on it.