Verbal Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 When you consider the image portrayed of those on benefits in the media - salacious and hyperbolic front pages about 'benefits scroungers', the weird obsession with the likes of Josie Cunningham and Tweet-bait TV shows such as Benefits Street - I would suggest it's not a great leap to think that people would quite happily vote for this treatment of those in need. Please don't fall for the line of an unthinking hysteric like pap and his apoplectic yelling. The fallacy of your argument is completely contained in your post: you're making a simple equation between what you regard as unfair representations of people on benefits in the media with the actual views of voters of either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. So contrary to your assertion, it actually IS a 'great leap' to think that voters for either party was signing up to a secretive campaign of bullying and intimidation to the extent that people's health is knowingly and sometimes seriously damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 You've watched Benefits Street, I haven't. You know who Josie Cunningham is, I don't. If there is an obsession (and media hype about them isn't matched by viewing figures) its with you. You've just admitted your politics have changed radically - so lets not point the finger at everybody else eh? Do you mind elaborating on that please, Tim. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 More made up stuff courtesy of the fantasy that happens in Pap's mind. Go Pap, spearhead the revolution that only you are smart enough to plan. He made three films about the SAS just after we'd illegally and pre-emptively invaded Iraq. Please find me the evidence that says he didn't, or that he had any sort of career making films afterwards. Don't name him, though. You'll get banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Do you mind elaborating on that please, Tim. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to suggest. My point was that you are falling into the trap of extrapolating your own experience to everyone else. Verbal said it more eloquently than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Please don't fall for the line of an unthinking hysteric like pap and his apoplectic yelling. The fallacy of your argument is completely contained in your post: you're making a simple equation between what you regard as unfair representations of people on benefits in the media with the actual views of voters of either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. So contrary to your assertion, it actually IS a 'great leap' to think that voters for either party was signing up to a secretive campaign of bullying and intimidation to the extent that people's health is knowingly and sometimes seriously damaged. I'm not falling for anything Pap has said. My views on the behaviour of Job Centres and and the treatment of those on benefits is almost entirely shaped by my own lived experiences, which I have spoken about more than once on here. I never claimed all voters of any one party do anything. What I was saying is that you can view representations in the media, and then subsequent reactions to said representations which are often extremely negative. From there, it is not hard to believe that actually, yes, some people may well happily vote for crappy treatment and harsher punishments for those on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 My point was that you are falling into the trap of extrapolating your own experience to everyone else. Verbal said it more eloquently than me. Ok, thanks. I've responded to Verbal above. I don't think that is a fair representation of what I saying, as in that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 He made three films about the SAS just after we'd illegally and pre-emptively invaded Iraq. So what? The trouble with most of your theories is that you think that proof someone is holding an apple is also proof that they must be hiding an orange. Making leaps from one thought to another and trying to link them by use of non sequiturs is why you get stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 So what? The trouble with most of your theories is that you think that proof someone is holding an apple is also proof that they must be hiding an orange. Making leaps from one thought to another and trying to link them by use of non sequiturs is why you get stick. So your initial statement is a load of shít. I made fúck all up, the man is a propagandist and hasn't had any serious work since doing his propaganda. You're right, of course. There could be other reasons. People might just dislike working with him. That's a possibility, given his content and conduct on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 So your initial statement is a load of shít. I made fúck all up, the man is a propagandist and hasn't had any serious work since doing his propaganda. You're right, of course. There could be other reasons. People might just dislike working with him. That's a possibility, given his content and conduct on this site. Same old same old. As always you are making up stuff about peoples motivations and goals when you have no idea; have not spoken to them and have no factual basis for your claims. It all just comes from your rather confused and inconsistent mind, and when asked to justify them you get aggressive and abusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Same old same old. As always you are making up stuff about peoples motivations and goals when you have no idea; have not spoken to them and have no factual basis for your claims. It all just comes from your rather confused and inconsistent mind, and when asked to justify them you get aggressive and abusive. There are years worth of goals and motivations on this site, Tim. They are all weighed in, believe me. I find his statements to be consistent with my position, especially his most recent efforts at fear-mongerin' on Islamic matters. The man is a joke, only bettered by those that slavishly follow him. If he is not prepared to stand by his words, why the fúck should you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 February, 2015 Share Posted 5 February, 2015 Which one are you, Tim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 Tristan Hunt has just had an absolute Danny Fox on question time tonight . Shocking performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 Tristan Hunt has just had an absolute Danny Fox on question time tonight . Shocking performance Didn't see it so cannot comment specifically, but dude is awful. He's so transparently spent the past year/18 months trying to make a name for himself to manoeuvre a headstart for a leadership campaign if/when Ed gets shafted. Posh boy Blair mk II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 February, 2015 Tristan Hunt has just had an absolute Danny Fox on question time tonight . Shocking performance He wouldn't approve of the Saintsweb match day nuns, that's for sure.... #nungate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 I see Galloway did alright despite being set up in a hostile audience. It would be interesting to see a rabid Zionist turn up on QT in Bradford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 NHS reorganisation was disastrous, says King's Fund. The King's Fund is a hugely respected policy body which looks only at healthcare. If it says something about healthcare you can pretty much take it to the bank. According to them the first two years of the coalition were disastrous for the health service and a hugely complex bureaucracy was introduced. The past two years have been better with increased focus on patient care. Labour is crying wolf over more privatisation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 Some more, from the Mirror this time. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-two-killed-himself-because-1844633 I've never voted Tory, but I understood why people did, especially on the financial front. You'd normally get a nice tax break if you were working, they did the free money thing on council housing stock. I got their appeal to the soulless aspirational c**t part of the electorate. With the financial incentive gone, Conservative voters effectively just voting to kill people now. Fkn scroungers, eh? In the meantime, ATOS are getting 110m a year in government handouts, with a further 60m going on all the appeals that are generated. A third of all its decisions are overturned. More here: http://dwpunspun.org.uk/sanctions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 February, 2015 (edited) More here: http://dwpunspun.org.uk/sanctions How many of those examples are down to Job Centre staff and/or management failure/dogma/incompetence vs those that are purely down to government policy? It's a genuine question, and one that isn't motivated by my political leanings (honest!)....I admit to having no idea how what the guidelines/rules are (does it show?!) but surely most of those examples, on the surface, appear to be down to a lack of common sense being applied on a case by case basis? If there was genuinely nothing that the staff/management could have done differently to prevent the highlighted scenarios arising then I would concede that the system (and the policy(s) that underwrite it) does indeed appear to be broken. Edited 6 February, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 How many of those examples are down to Job Centre staff and/or management failure/dogma/incompetence vs those that are purely down to government policy? It's a genuine question, and one that isn't motivated by my political leanings (honest!)....I admit to having no idea how what the guidelines/rules are (does it show?!) but surely most of those examples, on the surface, appear to be down to a lack of common sense being applied on a case by case basis? If there was genuinely nothing that the staff/management could have done differently to prevent the highlighted scenarios arising then I would concede that the system (and the policy(s) that underwrite it) does indeed appear to be broken. There looks to be a clear culture of sanctions targets. Those look to be clear examples of people trying to meet those targets. The perennial problem with right wing thinking is never considering the consequences of all those ideas that looked sounded great in soundbite form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 February, 2015 (edited) There looks to be a clear culture of sanctions targets. Those look to be clear examples of people trying to meet those targets. That's a reasonable assumption. Would be good to drill down into a few of the cases highlighted to turn those assumptions into facts. (I'm not saying that your assumptions are wrong, just that it would be good to be 100% certain) Edited 6 February, 2015 by trousers oops, missed a "not" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 How many of those examples are down to Job Centre staff and/or management failure/dogma/incompetence vs those that are purely down to government policy? It's a genuine question, and one that isn't motivated by my political leanings (honest!)....I admit to having no idea how what the guidelines/rules are (does it show?!) but surely most of those examples, on the surface, appear to be down to a lack of common sense being applied on a case by case basis? If there was genuinely nothing that the staff/management could have done differently to prevent the highlighted scenarios arising then I would concede that the system (and the policy(s) that underwrite it) does indeed appear to be broken. I honestly do not know. Either way though, it's of little consolation to those on the receiving end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 That's a reasonable assumption. Would be good to drill down into a few of the cases highlighted to turn those assumptions into facts. (I'm saying that your assumptions are wrong, just that it would be good to be 100% certain) More than once over the last 4 years, especially when working in Sandwell, I have given examples of how the system is now targeting people, instead of helping people and your usual refrain has been "it's not policy but the implementation". That's bull, it is policy. My favourite example is how a woman who had an appointment at the same time as her GCSE maths (calculator) paper. She had been told her lack of English and maths quals were holding her back so she'd enrolled on GCSEs to do something about it. She was told, by Tipton JCP, that if she missed her appointment then she'd be sanctioned, despite her giving them plenty of notice about the exam. She did the exam and passed with a B. We got involved as we ran some courses for them and were told, by the centre manager, that their regional manager had been told by London that missed appointment = sanction, no exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 February, 2015 (edited) More than once over the last 4 years, especially when working in Sandwell, I have given examples of how the system is now targeting people, instead of helping people and your usual refrain has been "it's not policy but the implementation". That's bull, it is policy. My favourite example is how a woman who had an appointment at the same time as her GCSE maths (calculator) paper. She had been told her lack of English and maths quals were holding her back so she'd enrolled on GCSEs to do something about it. She was told, by Tipton JCP, that if she missed her appointment then she'd be sanctioned, despite her giving them plenty of notice about the exam. She did the exam and passed with a B. We got involved as we ran some courses for them and were told, by the centre manager, that their regional manager had been told by London that missed appointment = sanction, no exceptions. I've no reason to doubt the words of a 'centre manager' or a 'regional manager' but it would still be good to see the actual evidence of what they are saying rather than just having their word for it. For example, was there an email chain that proves that "London" were actively overriding common sense? Some meeting minutes somewhere? How do we know that the full picture was communicated to "London" effectively in the first place? (root cause analysis etc) I know I'm asking for evidence that we're probably never going to be witness to, but without that it comes down to one person's word against another which, whilst sounding convincing and perfectly believable, isn't 100% conclusive proof that "London" are totally to blame each and every time. Here's a hypothetical thought....what if the aforementioned "regional manager" was a staunch Labour activist. Might it not be in his/her interests to 'distort' the information he/she was receiving from "London" because the worse they can make things look the more likely it is that they will be voted out and the system made 'better' in the longer run? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for one minute saying that's what happened in the case you raise, I'm just wondering whether we can 100% rule it out as a possibility in some cases. Edited 6 February, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 February, 2015 it's of little consolation to those on the receiving end. Totally agree with that. It's a bad outcome regardless of how or why the dominos fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 That's a reasonable assumption. Would be good to drill down into a few of the cases highlighted to turn those assumptions into facts. (I'm not saying that your assumptions are wrong, just that it would be good to be 100% certain) C'mon mate, what more do you need? The policies have been clearly announced, people within the DWP are breaking ranks and telling us that this is policy, there are tons of cases of people being sanctioned. Why do you think an organisation like ATOS has been brought into play? I know you'd probably like to believe the spin about getting people into work, but it's realistically about reducing the benefits bill, and those two things are not the same thing. The behaviour of Job Centre staff just seems to be an extension of that policy. What do you reckon happens when someone on an already low income loses that income for n weeks through a benefit sanction? Does that put them in a better spot to work? Of course not; it reduces their ability to attend job interviews, puts them in the hands of the loan sharks and creates more problems down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 February, 2015 C'mon mate, what more do you need? The policies have been clearly announced, people within the DWP are breaking ranks and telling us that this is policy, there are tons of cases of people being sanctioned. Why do you think an organisation like ATOS has been brought into play? I know you'd probably like to believe the spin about getting people into work, but it's realistically about reducing the benefits bill, and those two things are not the same thing. The behaviour of Job Centre staff just seems to be an extension of that policy. What do you reckon happens when someone on an already low income loses that income for n weeks through a benefit sanction? Does that put them in a better spot to work? Of course not; it reduces their ability to attend job interviews, puts them in the hands of the loan sharks and creates more problems down the line. If anyone has found themselves in financial distress through no fault of their own then, of course, that is wrong and I will happily join you in criticising the implementation of these policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 I've no reason to doubt the words of a 'centre manager' or a 'regional manager' but it would still be good to see the actual evidence of what they are saying rather than just having their word for it. For example, was there an email chain that proves that "London" were actively overriding common sense? Some meeting minutes somewhere? How do we know that the full picture was communicated to "London" effectively in the first place? (root cause analysis etc) I know I'm asking for evidence that we're probably never going to be witness to, but without that it comes down to one person's word against another which, whilst sounding convincing and perfectly believable, isn't 100% conclusive proof that "London" are totally to blame each and every time. Here's a hypothetical thought....what if the aforementioned "regional manager" was a staunch Labour activist. Might it not be in his/her interests to 'distort' the information he/she was receiving from "London" because the worse they can make things look the more likely it is that they will be voted out and the system made 'better' in the longer run? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for one minute saying that's what happened in the case you raise, I'm just wondering whether we can 100% rule it out as a possibility in some cases. Whatever. After working in Sandwell, seeing foodbanks in action for the 1st time, seeing how JCP and ATOS work at close quarters for 3 years, I know policy when I see it. This isn't about hammering the workshy, which I'm really all for, it's about saving money at the expense of some of the most vulnerable and f**k the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 I see Galloway did alright despite being set up in a hostile audience. It would be interesting to see a rabid Zionist turn up on QT in Bradford. He did much better than labours man thats for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 February, 2015 He did much better than labours man thats for sure That's a bit like saying Eddie the Eagle did better in the Winter Olympics than my nan.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 More than once over the last 4 years, especially when working in Sandwell, I have given examples of how the system is now targeting people, instead of helping people and your usual refrain has been "it's not policy but the implementation". That's bull, it is policy. My favourite example is how a woman who had an appointment at the same time as her GCSE maths (calculator) paper. She had been told her lack of English and maths quals were holding her back so she'd enrolled on GCSEs to do something about it. She was told, by Tipton JCP, that if she missed her appointment then she'd be sanctioned, despite her giving them plenty of notice about the exam. She did the exam and passed with a B. We got involved as we ran some courses for them and were told, by the centre manager, that their regional manager had been told by London that missed appointment = sanction, no exceptions. Why aren't these sorts of decisions being challenged by the the Independent Benefits Appeals procedure? Surely if they were, this sort of case would be thrown out. It seems rather strange that despite all these examples of how the benefits system is seemingly being abused by those administering it, that nobody has mentioned that these decisions can be appealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 How many of those examples are down to Job Centre staff and/or management failure/dogma/incompetence vs those that are purely down to government policy? It's a genuine question, and one that isn't motivated by my political leanings (honest!)....I admit to having no idea how what the guidelines/rules are (does it show?!) but surely most of those examples, on the surface, appear to be down to a lack of common sense being applied on a case by case basis? If there was genuinely nothing that the staff/management could have done differently to prevent the highlighted scenarios arising then I would concede that the system (and the policy(s) that underwrite it) does indeed appear to be broken. Pal, you haven't got a f**king clue how policy or the policy-making process works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 February, 2015 (edited) Pal, you haven't got a f**king clue how policy or the policy-making process works. Damn, and there was me desperately trying to conceal my ignorance. Foiled again by some bright spark on the interweb. Edited 6 February, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 Why aren't these sorts of decisions being challenged by the the Independent Benefits Appeals procedure? Surely if they were, this sort of case would be thrown out. It seems rather strange that despite all these examples of how the benefits system is seemingly being abused by those administering it, that nobody has mentioned that these decisions can be appealed. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charge-people-making-appeals-against-decisions-to-withdraw-benefits-leaked-document-reveals-9142783.html "Disability minister Mike Penning last week told MPs the scale of appeals - around 600,000 since its introduction - meant there was “real concern” about the work being carried out. The new proposals are particularly worrying given that anyone wanting to appeal a decision that they are fit to work first has to have all their paperwork looked at again, while receiving no sickness benefits. The Citizens Advice Bureau believes this will result in thousands of people being wrongly forced to survive on no income at all." "Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, accused the government of presiding over a “broken” benefits system. She said that 58 per cent of appeals against DWP decisions to withdraw jobseekers allowance are upheld." Makes you wonder about the efficacy of the original assessments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 February, 2015 Share Posted 6 February, 2015 I see Galloway did alright despite being set up in a hostile audience. It would be interesting to see a rabid Zionist turn up on QT in Bradford. You're right it was a compete set up. I only watched to see how Suzanne Evans got on against Galloway , as she's impressed me with her media appearances . To go head to head with George would have given some idea of her leadership potential . Unfortunately she was ill and replaced , but I still watched. It is quite disgraceful the way a serious programme is dumbing down and trying to create controversy . It was deliberately provocative to put Galloway in that environment and then fill the audience with Jewish people . I've never seen so many skull caps in a qt audience . I'm not saying Jews shouldn't have been there , I don't really care about anyone's religion , but the BBC lit a firework and sat back to deliberately create a Jeremy Kyle does politics type show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 February, 2015 Share Posted 7 February, 2015 Pal, you haven't got a f**king clue how policy or the policy-making process works. Well, perhaps you would kindly explain it to us and also tell us what qualifies you as an expert. Do you have any part of formulating policy yourself, do you oversee it or have a capacity of reviewing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 February, 2015 Share Posted 7 February, 2015 Well, perhaps you would kindly explain it to us and also tell us what qualifies you as an expert. Do you have any part of formulating policy yourself, do you oversee it or have a capacity of reviewing it? Les, did i claim to know the specifics of this case, whether there are benefits sanctions targets in place? No my point, a general one, is that pinning responsibility on a few loose canons on the ground is the apologist's favourite ruse. While you're asking, yes, I do have Whitehall policy experience (though not with DWP), so have seen first hand the pressures and conflicts that operate at the nexus of policy and implementation. As an aside, it is worth noting that the Jobcentre Plus network is very uniform and integrated compared with other parts of the public sector so much so that it has been the laboratory for all kinds of policy experiments in area of performance incentives. One consequence is that it is relatively easier to steer, should politicians and policymakers so desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 February, 2015 Share Posted 7 February, 2015 Les, did i claim to know the specifics of this case, whether there are benefits sanctions targets in place? No my point, a general one, is that pinning responsibility on a few loose canons on the ground is the apologist's favourite ruse. While you're asking, yes, I do have Whitehall policy experience (though not with DWP), so have seen first hand the pressures and conflicts that operate at the nexus of policy and implementation. As an aside, it is worth noting that the Jobcentre Plus network is very uniform and integrated compared with other parts of the public sector so much so that it has been the laboratory for all kinds of policy experiments in area of performance incentives. One consequence is that it is relatively easier to steer, should politicians and policymakers so desire. Shylock, did I ask you about the specifics of the case? I inquired about whether you had experience in formulating policy, or overseeing or reviewing it. So what precisely did you do in that regard? It could be anything between Civil Service Mandarin and junior clerk. My experience encompasses actually working in the Benefits Office of what was then the Department of Employment, but that was so long ago that anybody who was refused their Employment Benefit would merely go down to the Social Security and fill in a B1, so there was little chance that they would be without money to live on. Since then, my knowledge of how Government policy is formulated and implemented has been based on watching copious repeats of Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister. Mind you, I understand that amongst the satire, it was pretty accurate at the time, but likewise that was a different era, although I doubt somehow that the Civil Service itself has changed that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 February, 2015 Share Posted 7 February, 2015 Shylock, did I ask you about the specifics of the case? I inquired about whether you had experience in formulating policy, or overseeing or reviewing it. So what precisely did you do in that regard? It could be anything between Civil Service Mandarin and junior clerk. My experience encompasses actually working in the Benefits Office of what was then the Department of Employment, but that was so long ago that anybody who was refused their Employment Benefit would merely go down to the Social Security and fill in a B1, so there was little chance that they would be without money to live on. Since then, my knowledge of how Government policy is formulated and implemented has been based on watching copious repeats of Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister. Mind you, I understand that amongst the satire, it was pretty accurate at the time, but likewise that was a different era, although I doubt somehow that the Civil Service itself has changed that much. I was an advisor to a Secretary of State, worked on an independent review commissioned by the PM, among other things. HTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2015 [video=youtube_share;_qpB7JEsk8o]http://youtu.be/_qpB7JEsk8o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 Brilliant, trousers. It's so good it made me forget about all the people that are dying due to the policies of the party you support. "Because that's politics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 Read yesterday that Tony Blair was going to be getting involved in the election race for Labour - Help or hindrance or indifference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 Read yesterday that Tony Blair was going to be getting involved in the election race for Labour - Help or hindrance or indifference? If Labour's massive fall in membership numbers are any indication, hindrance. The man is walking doublespeak. Enabler of illegal wars in the Middle East to the extent where some, myself included, think he's a war criminal. He is also Middle East Envoy for Peace. Fkn liability imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2015 Brilliant, trousers. It's so good it made me forget about all the people that are dying due to the policies of the party you support. "Because that's politics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 If Labour's massive fall in membership numbers are any indication, hindrance. The man is walking doublespeak. Enabler of illegal wars in the Middle East to the extent where some, myself included, think he's a war criminal. He is also Middle East Envoy for Peace. Fkn liability imo. Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 If Labour's massive fall in membership numbers are any indication, hindrance. The man is walking doublespeak. Enabler of illegal wars in the Middle East to the extent where some, myself included, think he's a war criminal. He is also Middle East Envoy for Peace. Fkn liability imo. Not many in politics who aren't in all honesty. Liability that is, not war criminal (although that could be argued...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 IDS turns up 70 minutes late to visit a JobCentre. http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/11778858.Iain_Duncan_Smith_defends_much_criticised_welfare_reforms_during_visit_to_Nelson_Jobcentre/ Salary sanction? It's all paid for by the taxpayer, after all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 IDS turns up 70 minutes late to visit a JobCentre. http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/11778858.Iain_Duncan_Smith_defends_much_criticised_welfare_reforms_during_visit_to_Nelson_Jobcentre/ Salary sanction? It's all paid for by the taxpayer, after all.... He wasn't late, it's just no-one noticed he was there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 Labour need to distance themselves from the blair/brown era. as time goes on, it was a very alarming leadership of the country that we voted for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 Labour need to distance themselves from the blair/brown era. as time goes on, it was a very alarming leadership of the country that we voted for Labour need to do the following to get my vote - one vote that they've always had: Start representing the working man/woman again, instead of trendy minorities. Tackle immigration. Cut corporation tax, but at the same time plug the avoidance loopholes exploited by the super rich and corporations. Cut business red tape. Campaign for leaving the EU, and establishing a meaningful trade relationship with them instead. Stop using the NHS as a political football. Put the medical pros in charge again. End the days of NHS executives walking away with pay-offs that could finance whole wards. Renationalise the railways, so they cant take the ****** out of us any more. Renationalise the water. How can it be for profit? More chance of Arsene Wenger seeing one of his players fouls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simo Posted 9 February, 2015 Share Posted 9 February, 2015 I have a mate who has decided to stand for the green party in Hartlepool , After a bit of ribbing I have came to admire him for standing up for something he believes in and wanting to change the area he lives for the better ! If more people had the guts to do it this country could be a lot better rather that the same old guys peddling the same old policies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now