# The PF Election Poll



## MoggyBaby

Further to my other thread,http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/wednesday-election-poll.398526/ , here is the election options for tomorrow:

_This is a private poll so no-one can see your answer and you absolutely do not have to vote. 
_
This is just for fun. Let's see if PF can call it better than the 'official' pollsters are doing._ _

_ 
_


----------



## Satori

Nice idea. Great fun to see how close we call it.

I went with Not voting because I can't be bothered, but a closer choice would be Not voting because I have a conflict. I can't decide whether to vote for the party that would best for the country imo, Tory, or the party that would likely be better for me personally, Labour/ SNP.

I wonder how most people vote; what's best for themselves or with their conscience?


----------



## Waterlily

no one


----------



## petforum

Hi MoggyBaby,

I have added the 'Undecided' option and added the poll to the right hand column on the homepage.


----------



## Fleur

I will be voting - I admit I don't always but this year I feel it is so important to stop the insidious racism of UKIP
I am at the moment still undecided.
When I vote I normally vote in local elections for the person who I think can help my local area the most. In general elections the party that I feel will be best for the country as a whole.
At the moment I am still very conflicted - I think it may come down to my instinct the moment I cast my vote.


----------



## MoggyBaby

petforum said:


> Hi MoggyBaby,
> 
> I have added the 'Undecided' option and added the poll to the right hand column on the homepage.


Thanks Mark - very much appreciated. :Smuggrin


----------



## northnsouth

I spent 20 min doing an on line quiz it split me by 3 ways.That just about sums me up this time around...


----------



## MoggyBaby

Satori said:


> Nice idea. Great fun to see how close we call it.
> 
> I went with Not voting because I can't be bothered, but a closer choice would be Not voting because I have a conflict. I can't decide whether to vote for the party that would best for the country imo, Tory, or the party that would likely be better for me personally, Labour/ SNP.
> 
> I wonder how most people vote; what's best for themselves or with their conscience?


In SOME ways I do think the Tories are better for the country, and they would most likely be better for me, BUT...... I absolutely cannot condone their (lack of) animal welfare policies - the badger culls & the plan to repeal the Hunting Act being the main ones that are absolutely poisonious to me - and, as such, my conscience would not ever allow me to vote for them.

By the process of elimination, I am stuck with choosing Labour or the Greens. At this time, the current Tory incumbent in our area is higher in the polls by a whisker so, by voting Green (who are lowest in the local poll) I am putting a vote his way.


----------



## ForestWomble

The local vote is between two parties and I had no trouble deciding who to go for.

As for the big one, I went for who sounds the best for issues very important to me. All I will say is Please, please, please let it Not be the Conservatives who win!


----------



## Mrsred

I picked other as bar UKIP, I can only vote for the local cootie platoon in NI.


----------



## noushka05

Greens are the only party that puts the environment at the top of the agenda where it should be. The party that cares about wildlife, animals in general & fights for a fair society. They represent everything I care about but I don't have a green candidate so i'll be voting labour. Out of fear ukip will take the seat I probably would have voted Labour anyway, but I would have been really torn. My hubby and both our Sons are voting labour as well, they all hate what the current government has done to the country & they all love badgers!


----------



## havoc

The candidate I prefer by a long way on a personal level and think would be the best MP for the area is a member of a party I don't want to vote for. Still not sure what I'll do.


----------



## porps

Dunno still, I'm torn between voting labour to keep the evil tories out, wasting my vote on the greens or just not voting cos that would achieve exactly as much as a green vote. Probably the latter


----------



## LinznMilly

havoc said:


> The candidate I prefer by a long way on a personal level and think would be the best MP for the area is a member of a party I don't want to vote for. Still not sure what I'll do.


Sums up my predicament, too.

I'm leaning towards spoiling my ballot paper so voted Other. Might vote Labour to add my weight to the Get the Tories Out, brigade though, so really, still undecided.


----------



## Mr Gizmo

LinznMilly said:


> Sums up my predicament, too.
> 
> I'm leaning towards spoiling my ballot paper so voted Other. Might vote Labour to add my weight to the Get the Tories Out, brigade though, so really, still undecided.


 If you spoil your ballot paper then why bother even going to the polling station as it's as good as not voting at all.


----------



## silvi

I was looking recently at reports from the 2010 General Election in our constituency, and it appears that pre-election data collected showed that it was a straight race between Tories and Lib-Dems, with Labour not getting a look in. However, when the vote was counted, although the Lib-Dem candidate won by a substantial amount of votes, second in the race was the Labour Candidate.

Many people in our constituency voted Lib-Dem the last time around just to stop the Tories. Many may have voted Labour instead had they not thought that the Lib-Dem was the only chance to beat the Tory candidate. Quite a few people when asked said that would have been the case.

So this time, allowing that populations change, but that many also stay in the same area, who are those 'get the Tories out' people going to vote for?

Now, the data we are being presented with this time says similar to pre-2010, except that now the Lib-Dem vote is split because the previous (Lib-Dem) MP is now an independent. The data again shows the Labour candidate not standing a chance.

But, after last time, I'm not believing that data and will be voting Labour and I hope that many others feel the same way.


----------



## CRL

Im voting for labour but it would be a wasted vote. The area i live in is a tory area. I hope it becomes a labour or green constituency, but i wont be holding my breath.


----------



## Snowdog

the cant vote on holiday option


----------



## MoggyBaby

Mr Gizmo said:


> If you spoil your ballot paper then why bother even going to the polling station as it's as good as not voting at all.


Because, as there is no option for 'None of the above' of 'No confidence in above candidates', spoiling your ballot paper is currently the only way of lodging a protest against the current corruption in politics. If you stay at home you are 'lazy'. At least by spoiling your paper you are counted in the numbers of people who made the effort.


----------



## Fluffster

I'll be voting SNP


----------



## Mr Gizmo

MoggyBaby said:


> Because, as there is no option for 'None of the above' of 'No confidence in above candidates', spoiling your ballot paper is currently the only way of lodging a protest against the current corruption in politics. If you stay at home you are 'lazy'. At least by spoiling your paper you are counted in the numbers of people who made the effort.


Then surely a protest vote would be more apt.
The only reaction a spoiled paper gets is "oh well thats one for the bin"


----------



## MoggyBaby

Mr Gizmo said:


> Then surely a protest vote would be more apt.
> The only reaction a spoiled paper gets is "oh well thats one for the bin"


How do you protest vote when there is no option to do so?

Anything that is not simply a cross in the box is classed as a spoiled paper. Writing 'None of them' across the page will be classed as a spoiled paper, not a protest vote.


----------



## porps

MoggyBaby said:


> How do you protest vote when there is no option to do so?
> 
> Anything that is not simply a cross in the box is classed as a spoiled paper. Writing 'None of them' across the page will be classed as a spoiled paper, not a protest vote.


to me though, that's still like giving your mark of support to this system. If you dont supposr t any of the parties but you do support this ridiculous so called democracy, then u can spoil your ballot to show that. If you dont support any of the parties _or_ this ridiculous so called democracy... spoiling your ballot isnt gonna do anything, you might aswell stay home and not vote for all the difference it will make.


----------



## Misi

It's not easy being green.... (BUT, at least there's a Green candidate in my old constituency, so could be worse)
Seems a bit mad to be voting in an election for a government that will have little direct effect on my life, for a candidate in a place I haven't lived in for nearly 10 years. Hey-ho!!


----------



## Colliebarmy

Ive always been Tory (despite having been a mineworker and NUM) but this time im voting UKIP, they wont win but Labour almost sank the country 6 years ago, lets hope they dont get to spoil the turnaround by the Tories who equally dont deserve to win for their total arrogance in certain policies, I hope the creeping snivelling Libs vanish


----------



## chissy 15

I will be voting Labour as don't want the Tories back in and don't want to give my vote to Ukip or Lib dems. So annoyed that the Tories always seem to pick on the weak, vulnerable and poorest people in this country. How the hell can people receiving housing benefit keep on affording to pay this bedroom tax when there are no smaller properties for them to move into which they knew but just a way for them to make more money out of the poorest and not all people who receive housing benefit are unemployed a vast majority work but wages are so low Why can't they tax these rich bankers more, or these rich corporations? No let's pick on the poor, that's their motto


----------



## Colliebarmy

Youd think the "bedroom tax" would be this governments "poll tax" moment but only 200,000 have signed the Labour websites poll against it.

lets not forget the Liberals could have stopped it being passed but didnt


----------



## Mr Gizmo

MoggyBaby said:


> How do you protest vote when there is no option to do so?
> 
> Anything that is not simply a cross in the box is classed as a spoiled paper. Writing 'None of them' across the page will be classed as a spoiled paper, not a protest vote.


You protest by voting for a party such as The Monster Raving Loony party or any such party that will only gain a few votes and lose their deposit.
At least then they will have to include them in the count.


----------



## havoc

What way do people think this poll may be skewed? We're probably not a properly picked random selection, by definition we're all interested in animals to be on this forum. Might that make our poll lean one way or another? So far it seems quite a good spread but will be interesting to analyse it at the end of the week.


----------



## Happy Paws2

Andrew Mitchell always gets in here so no point voting Labour, so this time as a protest vote I'm voting UKIP.


----------



## Satori

havoc said:


> What way do people think this poll may be skewed? We're probably not a properly picked random selection, by definition we're all interested in animals to be on this forum. Might that make our poll lean one way or another?


It will be skewed strongly to the left if the preponderance of option reflected in posts on the forum are anything to go by. I am surprised that there are as many as 13 votes for Tory so far tbh, perhaps reflecting the shy Tory phenomenon in a new way.

Small population so far but you already see the skew. Nationally we have Tory 34%, Labour 33% and here, so far, labour on 32% with Tories on 21%.

I have often wondered whether the left leaning political tendencies of the forum are a reflection of being animal lovers, or something else. What about the membership being overwhelmingly female? Certainly pf members do seem a nicer bunch of people than most. Maybe lefties are just nicer than righties; that would play to the stereotype for sure?

Edit: I just played around on may2015.com drill down charts and it seems gender isn't much of a factor at all.


----------



## quagga

Labour for me. Not as left wing as I'd like, but as long as it gets the Tories out then it'll do.


----------



## branwen

I have just ticked the box in the poll for the one I have already voted for by post for the other day and that was for the Conservatives.  If Labour get in I am emigrating lol!!


----------



## LinznMilly

Mr Gizmo said:


> You protest by voting for a party such as The Monster Raving Loony party or any such party that will only gain a few votes and lose their deposit.
> At least then they will have to include them in the count.


But if what I've read is correct, tactical voting might just increase numbers for the PM you may or may not want, so in a way, it's a simple 2 horse race - Milliband or Cameron:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/04/how-to-vote-tactically-election

However, by stating None of the Above, or None (or spoiling your ballot paper), it HAS to be counted.

http://www.votenone.org.uk/protest_votes_count.html

And the main difference between spoiling your ballot and not voting at all:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...litics-Dont-plan-to-vote-Read-this-first.html


----------



## MollySmith

11 votes for UKIP? :Vomit


----------



## toffee44

Not voting, feel bad but registered in Kent and I live in surrey and missed the postal deadline


----------



## LinznMilly

MollySmith said:


> 11 votes for UKIP? :Vomit


I know! I have a colleague who says she intends to vote UKIP.


----------



## Fluffster

MollySmith said:


> 11 votes for UKIP? :Vomit


People "protesting" by voting for a bunch of racists. Protesting against what, equality?


----------



## rona

Fluffster said:


> People "protesting" by voting for a bunch of racists. Protesting against what, equality?


The system. The old school need a ruddy good scare


----------



## cinnamontoast

Horrifying that some people are not voting or are voting based on one issue. Very shortsighted, IMO.


----------



## Fluffster

rona said:


> The system. The old school need a ruddy good scare


It gives me a good scare to think so many people will support a party who only thinly (very thinly) disguise their racism under a veneer of "patriotism". Their Islam-mania alone should put off most people. But hey, chuck in some people-pleasing policies and maybe people won't notice. Or care.

Once you've scared "the system" and have Nigel Farage and his merry band of loonies running the country (with such delightful colleagues as David Coburn, who called a Scottish MP Abu Hamza insinuating he was a terrorist because of the colour of his skin), what then? I like to think Britain is a progressive and diverse country whose people accept the many benefits immigrants bring to our country. Sometimes I wonder, though.

I get that people are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, but I'm not sure how voting for Ukip achieves anything other than putting some very dangerous people in possible influential positions.

Anyway everyone is entitled to vote how they want, I just hope people have really done their homework.


----------



## Summersky

Hmm.

I will vote tomorrow, but I will do it with a heavy heart, whatever I choose.

We are strongly Tory here, so my vote won't change anything anyway.

As for the choice? Well, the Tories will look after the economy; so the better off will be OK, but I can't condone their failure to care for the vulnerable.

Labour will be a disaster for the economy, and therefore, ultimately all of us, including the vulnerable, who they aim to protect, with repercussions for years and years to come. I can't see that Ed Milliband is up to the job.

LibDems? Well they lost my vote after the last debacle.. IMO their manifesto counts for nothing. Clegg sold out last time for a bit of power and he needs to go. Look what they allowed to happen to tuition fees.

UKIP? erm, No. Never. I listened to the on the radio last week, talking about which refugees they would or wouldn't allow into the country. Apparently Christian refugees would be OK. Others would be sent back. But if that non Christian refugee was a child???................ Yes, we need more control over how many and who we let in, or our little isle will sink, but that can't be right.

And the Greens? I seriously looked at their manifesto, and there is a lot of good in it - but they want to end the Monarchy. I love Queenie, so the Greens are out.

So do I vote for the ones who will look after the country's economy, which will help your well off and average person, at the expense of the vulnerable, or do I vote for the ones who say they will protect the vulnerable, but lack the business nouse to actually do that long term and will drag our country down into deep disastrous debt, making it harder for the average person in the times to come?


----------



## tinaK

Summersky said:


> Hmm.
> 
> I will vote tomorrow, but I will do it with a heavy heart, whatever I choose.
> 
> We are strongly Tory here, so my vote won't change anything anyway.
> 
> As for the choice? Well, the Tories will look after the economy; so the better off will be OK, but I can't condone their failure to care for the vulnerable.
> 
> Labour will be a disaster for the economy, and therefore, ultimately all of us, including the vulnerable, who they aim to protect, with repercussions for years and years to come. I can't see that Ed Milliband is up to the job.
> 
> LibDems? Well they lost my vote after the last debacle.. IMO their manifesto counts for nothing. Clegg sold out last time for a bit of power and he needs to go. Look what they allowed to happen to tuition fees.
> 
> UKIP? erm, No. Never. I listened to the on the radio last week, talking about which refugees they would or wouldn't allow into the country. Apparently Christian refugees would be OK. Others would be sent back. But if that non Christian refugee was a child???................ Yes, we need more control over how many and who we let in, or our little isle will sink, but that can't be right.
> 
> And the Greens? I seriously looked at their manifesto, and there is a lot of good in it - but they want to end the Monarchy. I love Queenie, so the Greens are out.
> 
> So do I vote for the ones who will look after the countries economy, which will help your well off and average person, at the expense of the vulnerable, or do I vote for the ones who say they will protect the vulnerable, but lack the business nouse to actually do that long term and will drag our country down into deep disastrous debt, making it harder for the average person in the times to come?


You've basically summed up how I feel. The Tories have failed to look after the vulnerable/disabled but labour can't be trusted with the economy


----------



## MoggyBaby

havoc said:


> *What way do people think this poll may be skewed?* We're probably not a properly picked random selection, by definition we're all interested in animals to be on this forum. Might that make our poll lean one way or another? So far it seems quite a good spread but will be interesting to analyse it at the end of the week.


Did you miss the bit that said "this is just a bit of fun....." ? I would be most concerned if Mori etc suddenly turned to Pet Forums to get the final lowdown on tomorrow!

As for whom folks are voting - I suspect many people are making their choice using the same formula as myself which is eliminating those we really DON'T want to vote for (in my case Tory & Ukip) and then whittling through what is left.


----------



## MollySmith

If I wanted to shake up the old school I'd vote Green, their policies are less frightening than UKIP. My friend lives in South Thanet and is voting for Al Murray.


----------



## MoggyBaby

MollySmith said:


> If I wanted to shake up the old school I'd vote Green, their policies are less frightening than UKIP. My friend lives in South Thanet and is voting for Al Murray.


If I lived in South Thanet, I would vote for Al Murray too!!


----------



## MollySmith

Fluffster said:


> It gives me a good scare to think so many people will support a party who only thinly (very thinly) disguise their racism under a veneer of "patriotism". Their Islam-mania alone should put off most people. But hey, chuck in some people-pleasing policies and maybe people won't notice. Or care.
> 
> Once you've scared "the system" and have Nigel Farage and his merry band of loonies running the country (with such delightful colleagues as David Coburn, who called a Scottish MP Abu Hamza insinuating he was a terrorist because of the colour of his skin), what then? I like to think Britain is a progressive and diverse country whose people accept the many benefits immigrants bring to our country. Sometimes I wonder, though.
> 
> I get that people are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, but I'm not sure how voting for Ukip achieves anything other than putting some very dangerous people in possible influential positions.
> 
> Anyway everyone is entitled to vote how they want, I just hope people have really done their homework.


Agree.

Hitler came to power based on many factors but it also included the weaknesses of other parties within Germany. Old school shake ups can be dangerous!

Anyway just posting this link again
https://voteforpolicies.org.uk

I am voting policy. Our area is a Lib Dem and Labour tustle but I will vote for the party that represents the areas I believe in the most. And to be sure I was voting correctly, I used this link above.


----------



## rona

MollySmith said:


> If I wanted to shake up the old school I'd vote Green, their policies are less frightening than UKIP. My friend lives in South Thanet and is voting for Al Murray.


The greens have never managed to shake things up before. Why should this time be any different?

UKIP are 3rd in the polls ......................


----------



## Lurcherlad

MoggyBaby said:


> In SOME ways I do think the Tories are better for the country, and they would most likely be better for me, BUT...... I absolutely cannot condone their (lack of) animal welfare policies - the badger culls & the plan to repeal the Hunting Act being the main ones that are absolutely poisonious to me - and, as such, my conscience would not ever allow me to vote for them.
> 
> By the process of elimination, I am stuck with choosing Labour or the Greens. At this time, the current Tory incumbent in our area is higher in the polls by a whisker so, by voting Green (who are lowest in the local poll) I am putting a vote his way.


I feel the same - we are in a Tory stronghold anyway, but my parliamentary candidate's views on animal welfare in particular are opposite to mine and so I have decided to vote for someone else. Having looked at the manifestos of the other candidates I have decided to vote Green. It won't make much difference to the outcome I suspect, but at least my conscience will be clear.

We also have a local council election tomorrow and I will be voting for the current Tory guy, who is actually an excellent councillor and works hard for local people and the area.


----------



## rona

Two of our candidates don't even live in the area


----------



## Spellweaver

havoc said:


> What way do people think this poll may be skewed? We're probably not a properly picked random selection, by definition we're all interested in animals to be on this forum. Might that make our poll lean one way or another? So far it seems quite a good spread but will be interesting to analyse it at the end of the week.


You would think that this being an animal forum that people would not be voting for parties such as the tories and UKIP, who are going to reintroduce fox huntig and continue the badger cull. But the people on here who *are* willing to allow this to continue by voting for either of these two parties amazes me.



Satori said:


> It will be skewed strongly to the left if the preponderance of option reflected in posts on the forum are anything to go by. I am surprised that there are as many as 13 votes for Tory so far tbh, perhaps reflecting the shy Tory phenomenon in a new way.
> 
> Small population so far but you already see the skew. Nationally we have Tory 34%, Labour 33% and here, so far, labour on 32% with Tories on 21%.
> 
> I have often wondered whether the left leaning political tendencies of the forum are a reflection of being animal lovers, or something else. What about the membership being overwhelmingly female? Certainly pf members do seem a nicer bunch of people than most. Maybe lefties are just nicer than righties; that would play to the stereotype for sure?
> 
> Edit: I just played around on may2015.com drill down charts and it seems gender isn't much of a factor at all.


Or the polictical leanings of the forum could just be a reflection of real life - a backlash to the uncaring policies they have seen foisted upon the most vulnerable during the last five years. It will be interesting to see how the result of this poll compare to the real election results.



cinnamontoast said:


> Horrifying that some people are not voting or are voting based on one issue. Very shortsighted, IMO.


Depends upon what that issue is and how much weight you give to it. For me, animal cruelty is a massive issue - I don't think I would ever decide who to vote for solely on that issue, but that issue would certainly decide for me who NOT to vote for.


----------



## Lurcherlad

cloversmum said:


> You've basically summed up how I feel. The Tories have failed to look after the vulnerable/disabled but *labour can't be trusted with the economy*


Too many people seem to have forgotten that important fact! :Sour


----------



## sharloid

Happy Paws said:


> Andrew Mitchell always gets in here so no point voting Labour, so this time as a protest vote I'm voting UKIP.


But I thought you liked your holidays in Europe?


----------



## catpud

I have already voted by postal vote - I voted Plaid Cymru, again


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Two of our candidates don't even live in the area


When a certain world-class athlete turned Tory MP lost his seat in the 1997 general election, a discussion took place in which it was suggested that he run as Tory candidate in a by election for a safe Tory seat near us.

However, when asked how he would deal with particular concerns in that borough, if chosen as candidate and elected, the hopeful candidate asked "where is it, exactly?"

Luckily for Tory faithful in the area, he didn't take over as candidate and became a life peer instead....


----------



## Elles

UKIP will pull out of the EU which may free up tb vaccinations for cattle and badgers in the UK earlier, rather than waiting for EU approval. The UK can then make its own decisions regarding oral vaccine earlier too. UKIP will ban live export. Install CCTV in all abattoirs. Triple the maximum jail sentences for animal neglect/cruelty and bring in a lifetime ban for people convicted of animal neglect/cruelty. Introduce local referendum regarding fox-hunting, not just bring it back, which the conservatives promised to do. Soooo. :Bag


----------



## tincan

I know where my heart lays , but sadly i am in conflict .... and the vote i want to make , will only make way for the TT's we have now ... Where i live has been totally Tory for a long , long time . And will remain so , huge hunting fraternity here , and i can bet my bottom dollar it will remain so ..... Don't get me wrong i have voted Tory in the past ( Eons ago ) , Yes the Thatcher years , and proud to admit it ..... I cannot abide any of them if i am honest , career politicians the lot of them , such a shame John Smith died .... So tomorrow i will be voting Labour ...


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> UKIP will pull out of the EU which may free up tb vaccinations for cattle and badgers in the UK earlier, rather than waiting for EU approval. The UK can then make its own decisions regarding oral vaccine earlier too. UKIP will ban live export. Install CCTV in all abattoirs. Triple the maximum jail sentences for animal neglect/cruelty and bring in a lifetime ban for people convicted of animal neglect/cruelty. Introduce local referendum regarding fox-hunting, not just bring it back, which the conservatives promised to do. Soooo. :Bag


I like the importance they seem to put on the treatment of animals, but in the same manifesto they don't seem to be as concerned about the environment and global warming, which of course will impact on millions of living creatures long before it effects us


----------



## Satori

Summersky said:


> So do I vote for the ones who will look after the country's economy, which will help your well off and average person, at the expense of the vulnerable, or do I vote for the ones who say they will protect the vulnerable, but lack the business nouse to actually do that long term and will drag our country down into deep disastrous debt, making it harder for the average person in the times to come?


Now that's a nice summary. I would say vote for the economy and support whichever charities you can trust according to your ability to do so.

I think I'll go with my conscience and vote Tory tomorrow although if they did I get a majority I'd take a bit of a hit, maybe a big hit. (I have very long positions on US Dollar and Swiss Franc, in anticipation of a left wing government.)


----------



## MoggyBaby

tincan said:


> I know where my heart lays , but sadly i am in conflict .... and the vote i want to make , will only make way for the TT's we have now ... Where i live has been totally Tory for a long , long time . And will remain so , huge hunting fraternity here , and i can bet my bottom dollar it will remain so ..... Don't get me wrong i have voted Tory in the past ( Eons ago ) , Yes the Thatcher years , and proud to admit it ..... I cannot abide any of them if i am honest , career politicians the lot of them , *such a shame John Smith died .... * So tomorrow i will be voting Labour ...


Never a truer word spoken and a sentiment I have voiced myself many, many times over the years.


----------



## Satori

Spellweaver said:


> Or the polictical leanings of the forum could just be a reflection of real life - a backlash to the uncaring policies they have seen foisted upon the most vulnerable during the last five years.


Yeah right. So if Labour get 34% of the national vote tomorrow and the Tories get 20% then I will eat Colliebarmy's trilby. (Assuming he has a spare).


----------



## cheekyscrip

Have British passport..cannot vote; resident of Gibraltar...if I moved to sSpain..possibly could vote? Ironic.


----------



## Satori

cheekyscrip said:


> Have British passport..cannot vote; resident of Gibraltar...if I moved to sSpain..possibly could vote? Ironic.


I know nearly nothing about this but that's interesting. Can't you choose between being an overseas territory citizen or a standard British citizen? Can't the latter vote?


----------



## noushka05

The economy is worse now than it was under labour, that's despite all the cuts to public services & the welfare budget CM. Did anyone see Kay Burley skewer Osborne today over our Deficit now being bigger than Greeces? Here is the video clip of it


----------



## mrs phas

none of them are worth a crock of $h!te
but
as this is a safe tory seat, always has been, and, unfortunately always will be [too many landed gentry in suffolk]
i will be voting UKIP just to bring his numbers down [also I actually like UKIP policy on immigration, copying the nz/australian/american points system, Ive said this for years]
3 of my sons are voting for the first time, and they all have decided to vote Labour, as, she was the only one of the candidates for here to send them a letter [ok computer one] pointing out their young persons manifesto and inviting them to write/email any questions he might have
Manners go a long way with my kids lol

In local divisions though I shall be voting for the person who i believe does/will do the best job for the town or county [ in my case a tory for one and a labour candidate for t'other]
I think local elections are far more about who does what, and their morals/ethics, than what party they belong to


----------



## MollySmith

Elles said:


> UKIP will pull out of the EU which may free up tb vaccinations for cattle and badgers in the UK earlier, rather than waiting for EU approval. The UK can then make its own decisions regarding oral vaccine earlier too. UKIP will ban live export. Install CCTV in all abattoirs. Triple the maximum jail sentences for animal neglect/cruelty and bring in a lifetime ban for people convicted of animal neglect/cruelty. Introduce local referendum regarding fox-hunting, not just bring it back, which the conservatives promised to do. Soooo. :Bag


Hmmm in January 2014 UKIP voted against measures to protect elephants and crack down on the illegal ivory trade. Not one UKIP MEP signed a letter to demand an EU action plan on wildlife policy.Yes, everyone was appalled by the slaughter footage but the Greens and Labour parties have a much better global policy on animal welfare that doesn't allude to racial divides.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> The greens have never managed to shake things up before. Why should this time be any different?
> 
> UKIP are 3rd in the polls ......................


The* one* green MP has done loads, imagine what more could do?  UKIP are ultra right wingers, they are our equivalent of Americas dangerous Tea Party movement.


----------



## MollySmith

rona said:


> The greens have never managed to shake things up before. Why should this time be any different?
> 
> UKIP are 3rd in the polls ......................


Third isn't first thank goodness.


----------



## petforum

UKIP are higher than I would have thought. There's also a lot of people undecided which is surprising seeing as the vote is tomorrow.


----------



## MollySmith

I just wanted to say in case you hadn't guessed, that it's so awful and sad to see UKIP getting votes. Why would any woman vote for Farage who said "Godfrey's [Bloom, former UKIP MEP] comment that 'no employer with a brain in the right place would employ a young, single free woman' has been proved so right. With this lunacy, that if you have children you get three months paid leave off work, or six months paid leave off work - he absolutely got it spot on."

Our local UKIP muppet said that pregnant women in the workplace are a mistake. Then there's Roger Helmer, telling us that rape is always wrong but not always equally culpable. 

It's not just about immigration, but about more very critical issues. FFS WAKE UP and read, and I mean really read their manifesto!!! Many of us on here have spoken about past, painful events that happened to us through violence and I cannot possibly vote for a party who fail to take that seriously. _None_ of UKIPs MEP's even turned up to vote on key election votes about female gential mutilation, violence again women or equal pay.

Actually don't answer my opening question, I refuse to watch the plank on my telly and I have no wish to engage in a debate about the waste of space.


----------



## cheekyscrip

Satori said:


> I know nearly nothing about this but that's interesting. Can't you choose between being an overseas territory citizen or a standard British citizen? Can't the latter vote?


 I was Overseas British Citizen..now I am regular British...might get passport from London if wish so...but no, no votes for any...even descendants of British from Britain like my OH...but Brits in Spain can vote in consulate or embassy? We protest for long time now...seems " It may affect relationship with Spain"...Like ..how? Spanish will refuse to take more money from British tax payers if offended?


----------



## Ang2

UKIP are getting votes because people are genuinely concerned about mass, uncontrolled immigration. You don't have to be racist, to be worried. So many votes on this forum poll,, yet they remain mostly anonymous, due to the vitriol and screams of 'racist' from other forum members.


----------



## quagga

Why can't Labour be trusted with the economy? The financial crisis was cause by the (global) collapse of the banks, not overspending. In 2007 the Tories actually agreed to match Labour's spending plans for at least three years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm)


----------



## cinnamontoast

Labour appear deluded. They allege that they will make the EU work for them and be the power in Europe. Dreaming, God love them. The UK is well past their power days, Europe is run by Merkel and Milliband knows this.

Their manifesto reads like a fairytale or wish list, all very admirable, but by raising the mansion tax, they will not employ 3000 more midwives, reduce tuition fees to £6000 (hello, not all unis charge the max!) or do any of the other outstanding and admirable things they promise. Is there a rolleyes smiley, still?

And I don't believe their stance on hunting is a tenet of their philosophy, call me cynical, but I think it's purely a deliberate tactic to win more votes from people who feel strongly about the issue. There's more than one way to skin a cat and voting for a party on one point in 86 pages of manifesto (although plenty of pages were just pretty pictures) would be unfortunate.


----------



## cinnamontoast

CHE said:


> Why can't Labour be trusted with the economy? The financial crisis was cause by the (global) collapse of the banks, not overspending. In 2007 the Tories actually agreed to match Labour's spending plans for at least three years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm)


Leaving a 'hilarious' note in the Treasury office saying 'We spent all the money' does not inspire me with confidence. I spent a good while reading the entire manifesto earlier and they'll do more than spend all the money, they'll spend all of ours and more, too!


----------



## Jesthar

Still not sure who I'm going to vote for. Nailed on Conservative area anyway, but even though the Conservative candidate is actually pretty good on local issues I can't bring myself to vote for them. In the last election the Lib Dems were in second place by a long way but I expect a big drop there after the sell out of the last term, Labour third by an even bigger margin but I can't stand them, and the Greens didn't even get their deposit back!

The only other options are UKIP (not a chance!) and some random independent I haven't had any information from and can't even find anything much about online, so that's out too.

Annoyingly, for the first time in about half a dozen general elections, we have no Monster Raving Loony Pary candidate standing - that would have been a fab way to protest vote...


----------



## Sacrechat

I've already voted because we do postal votes. Filled them in last Thursday and hubby posted them last Friday.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

With a heavy heart I've decided I will vote and its going to be Tory. I can't imagine what sort of mess Ed and Nicola will get us into and whilst I would like to vote for the party that does most for animal welfare its sadly not the only issue I have to take into consideration. I still dislike all of them and am fed up to the back teeth with their blandness and total detachment from the real world and the issues most of us face and deal with but for us as small business owners keeping taxes down and a steady hand on the economy has made my mind up. Our constituency is very marginal (about 200 votes) between the Lib dems and conservatives. The Lib dem MP is retiring so despite every vote counting I'm still amazed to see very little sign of any parties in the area. A few manky old posters and thats it. They treat us all with contempt and much as I am tempted to write that on my paper I feel I must behave and not spoil my paper.


----------



## silvi

cheekyscrip said:


> I was Overseas British Citizen..now I am regular British...might get passport from London if wish so...but no, no votes for any...even descendants of British from Britain like my OH...but Brits in Spain can vote in consulate or embassy? We protest for long time now...seems " It may affect relationship with Spain"...Like ..how? Spanish will refuse to take more money from British tax payers if offended?


Brits in Spain can only vote in UK elections if they are resident _in_ the consulate or embassy. If they have lived in Spain more than three months they are considered residents of Spain and are supposed to register as such. At that point they are no longer supposed to vote in UK elections (although some find ways to cheat the system and continue to do so).

Ironically however, they cannot vote in Spanish General Elections until they have been resident for 5 years and have obtained an official 'green card' saying they are a permanent resident of Spain (although most don't bother because of all the bureaucracy involved). The card before that just says you are a resident but with 'Extranjero' (foreigner) status.

But all Brits living in Spain can vote in local council elections as soon as they are signed on the local 'padron' (register of householders and residents - like our council tax register).


----------



## JANICE199

*I can't vote as i missed the deadline for registering. But hand on heart, i had every intention of voting this year. My vote would have gone to Labour. The very thought of the tories getting in again scares the sh*t out of me. Too many people have suffered under the Tories.*


----------



## noushka05

cinnamontoast said:


> Leaving a 'hilarious' note in the Treasury office saying 'We spent all the money' does not inspire me with confidence. I spent a good while reading the entire manifesto earlier and they'll do more than spend all the money, they'll spend all of ours and more, too!


Osborne has borrowed more in 5 years than Labour did in 13:Wideyed (Graph taken from tory rag the Spectator, so you couldn't accuse me of left wing propaganda lol) And the Labour Party record for animal welfare & environmental concerns is far superior to the Conservative party - so I disagree with your fox hunting theory.



And from the horses mouth John Mann & Chuka Umunna nail Osborne over the debt lie.The tories have lied through their back teeth so they can implement their austerity & transfer our public assets into private pockets.


----------



## noushka05

Ang2 said:


> UKIP are getting votes because people are genuinely concerned about mass, uncontrolled immigration. You don't have to be racist, to be worried. So many votes on this forum poll,, yet they remain mostly anonymous, due to the vitriol and screams of 'racist' from other forum members.


Seen this video on this link Ang?. Vote with hope, not fear 

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-dont-let-your-voice-be-taken-away-owen-jones


----------



## JANICE199

noushka05 said:


> Osborne has borrowed more in 5 years than Labour did in 13:Wideyed (Graph taken from tory rag the Spectator, so you couldn't accuse me of left wing propaganda lol) And the Labour Party record for animal welfare & environmental concerns is far superior to the Conservative party - so I disagree with your fox hunting theory.
> 
> 
> 
> And from the horses mouth John Mann & Chuka Umunna nail Osborne over the debt lie.The tories have lied through their back teeth so they can implement their austerity & transfer our public assets into private pockets.


Just looking at that bloke gets me angry.


----------



## noushka05

JANICE199 said:


> Just looking at that bloke gets me angry.


lol You're not on your own!unch Have you seen these though Jan?


----------



## Spellweaver

Satori said:


> Yeah right. So if Labour get 34% of the national vote tomorrow and the Tories get 20% then I will eat Colliebarmy's trilby. (Assuming he has a spare).


Stranger things have happened.


----------



## Spellweaver

petforum said:


> UKIP are higher than I would have thought. There's also a lot of people undecided which is surprising seeing as the vote is tomorrow.


I think UKIP being third is a lot to do with voters' distrust of the Lib-Dems. If Clegg had not done such an about turn on one of his party's integral, fundamental principles - ie university fees - then I reckon the the LibDems would still be in their traditional third place instead of UKIP.


----------



## JANICE199

Spellweaver said:


> I think UKIP being third is a lot to do with voters' distrust of the Lib-Dems. If Clegg had not done such an about turn on one of his party's integral, fundamental principles - ie university fees - then I reckon the the LibDems would still be in their traditional third place instead of UKIP.


*I do believe had Clegg not done what he did, the lib dems would be in the best position this time around. Clegg ruined all chances his party had. What a damn fool.*


----------



## Spellweaver

noushka05 said:


> The economy is worse now than it was under labour, that's despite all the cuts to public services & the welfare budget CM. Did anyone see Kay Burley skewer Osborne today over our Deficit now being bigger than Greeces? Here is the video clip of it


I find it very puzzling how otherwise intelligent people can still believe Labour were worse for the economy than the Tories when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Could it possibly be that they are wealthy enough for the Tory policies to be better for them than the Labour policies and so they need to find something - anything - to salve their consciences at voting for a party who willl deiberately attack the most vulnerable people in the society in order to make the wealthy even wealthier?

And I think the fact that people (especially people on an animal forum) can fall for the hype and vote for a party who are guaranteeing to cause more cruelty to animals is heartbreaking. :Bawling.


----------



## DoodlesRule

So looking at the numbers on the poll here, likely result would be a Tory/UKIP coalition then !


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> Osborne has borrowed more in 5 years than Labour did in 13:Wideyed


That's correct, but it doesn't make the point you think it makes. Here's why...


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> So looking at the numbers on the poll here, likely result would be a Tory/UKIP coalition then !


Just about the worst possible result for the country. Tory plus Tory with added racism, homophoboa and misogyny. We're in for a bad five years if that happens - and that's even without all the vulnerable people - and animals - who will die because of their policies.


----------



## noushka05

Spellweaver said:


> I find it very puzzling how otherwise intelligent people can still believe Labour were worse for the economy than the Tories when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Could it possibly be that they are wealthy enough for the Tory policies to be better for them than the Labour policies and so they need to find something - anything - to salve their consciences at voting for a party who willl deiberately attack the most vulnerable people in the society in order to make the wealthy even wealthier?


The power of the corporate media, it serves its right wing masters well.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Spellweaver said:


> Just about the worst possible result for the country. Tory plus Tory with added racism, homophoboa and misogyny. We're in for a bad five years if that happens - and that's even without all the vulnerable people - and animals - who will die because of their policies.


Would a Labour/SNP coalition be better for the country do you think?


----------



## Satori

DoodlesRule said:


> Would a Labour/SNP coalition be better for the country do you think?


Depends which country


----------



## Muttly

I must admit I haven't voted for a few years but I'm totally 100% behind one party this time  So going to vote at lunchtime.


----------



## JANICE199

Would a Labour/SNP coalition be better for the country do you think?

*I think they would.......... i hope this doesn't quote twice. lol*


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> Would a Labour/SNP coalition be better for the country do you think?


Much, much batter - although Miliband has repeatedly said that there will be no such coalition. When you think about it, he doesn't have to go into coalition, because if he forms a party without a big enough overall majority, then he will still be able to get his policies though because the SNP are never going to vote in line with the Tories, or abstain if it means that the Tories will win. So Miliband will have their support without any formal agreement. A Labour government supported by SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens seems to me to be the best possible result.


----------



## Lurcherlad

Try and imagine where we would be now if Labour had continued in power for the last five years. Really, be honest


----------



## Satori

Lurcherlad said:


> Try and imagine where we would be now if Labour had continued in power for the last five years. Really, be honest


Here....


----------



## JANICE199

*Hand on heart, i am confused as to why some people think we were worse off under Labour. Strange how we all see things differently.*


----------



## Spellweaver

Lurcherlad said:


> Try and imagine where we would be now if Labour had continued in power for the last five years. Really, be honest


Probably in the same position economywise - after all, despite the Tory hype the economic crisis was not caused by Labour, but by global affairs started by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco in the USA. Most countries have been affected, not just the UK; so anyone with half a brain could work out that the economic crisis was not Labour's fault - unless, of course, they just trot it out as an excuse to defend their self-interest in voting Tory,

So the only difference would have been in the way money was found to pay off the deficit. Under a Labour government, the poorest and most vulnerable people would not have had to foot the bill for an ecomic crisis caused by global affairs. So the rich would be a little less rich and the poor would be a little more wealthy. Much more sensible than giving millionaires a tax cut while taking so much money from poor poeple that over a million now depend on food banks. Unde the Tories, this country has more people living in poverty than it has ever had.


----------



## JANICE199

*Last night on the Paul O'grady show, Paul basicly said what he thought of the tories.. Worth watching on catch up, just go to the end of the show.*


----------



## MoggyBaby

Spellweaver said:


> And I think the fact that people (especially people on an animal forum) can fall for the hype and vote for a party who are guaranteeing to cause more cruelty to animals is heartbreaking. :Bawling.





JANICE199 said:


> *Hand on heart, i am confused as to why some people think we were worse off under Labour. Strange how we all see things differently.*


Hubs & I will most likely be worse off under Labour. It is expected that Labour will put up Income Tax and most likely motor fuel tax. The last Labour lot treated the motorist like a golden goose. 'Need more money?' Put up the fuel tax!!

Hubs and I have no kids, we both work hard - over 90hrs a week between us - for an okay wage (neither of us hit the supposed 'average') we don't qualify for any form of benefit and we need our cars to get to work.



Spellweaver said:


> Much, much batter - although Miliband has repeatedly said that there will be no such coalition. When you think about it, he doesn't have to go into coalition, because if he forms a party without a big enough overall majority, then he will still be able to get his policies though because the SNP are never going to vote in line with the Tories, or abstain if it means that the Tories will win. So Miliband will have their support without any formal agreement. * A Labour government supported by SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens seems to me to be the best possible result*.


It totally would be! That is a FAIR government where the UK is fully represented. I have said this for a few weeks now.


----------



## jaycee05

rona said:


> I like the importance they seem to put on the treatment of animals, but in the same manifesto they don't seem to be as concerned about the environment and global warming, which of course will impact on millions of living creatures long before it effects us


How can UKIP be so hypocritical when Farage is all for hunting and friendly with the hunting fraternity, ?


----------



## Lurcherlad

Spellweaver said:


> Probably in the same position economywise - after all, despite the Tory hype the economic crisis was not caused by Labour, but by global affairs started by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco in the USA. Most countries have been affected, not just the UK; so anyone with half a brain could work out that the economic crisis was not Labour's fault - unless, of course, they just trot it out as an excuse to defend their self-interest in voting Tory,
> 
> So the only difference would have been in the way money was found to pay off the deficit. Under a Labour government, the poorest and most vulnerable people would not have had to foot the bill for an ecomic crisis caused by global affairs. So the rich would be a little less rich and the poor would be a little more wealthy. Much more sensible than giving millionaires a tax cut while taking so much money from poor poeple that over a million now depend on food banks. Unde the Tories, this country has more people living in poverty than it has ever had.


Labour were in power for 2 terms leading up to the crisis. They must take some responsibility.

We are always advised not to borrow to get out of debt - Labour will be contacting WONGA if they get in! :Hilarious

We disagree - that's fine. (I think we usually do on most things )


----------



## JANICE199

Lurcherlad said:


> Labour were in power for 2 terms leading up to the crisis. They must take some responsibility.
> 
> We are always advised not to borrow to get out of debt - Labour will be contacting WONGA if they get in! :Hilarious
> 
> We disagree - that's fine. (I think we usually do on most things )


*I believe the troubles started under Thatcher. Her government did exactly what this government have done, fiddles all of the figures.*


----------



## jaycee05

CHE said:


> Why can't Labour be trusted with the economy? The financial crisis was cause by the (global) collapse of the banks, not overspending. In 2007 the Tories actually agreed to match Labour's spending plans for at least three years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm)


Totally agree with this and has been provedit was the banks NOT Labour who caused the financial crisis


----------



## Spellweaver

Lurcherlad said:


> Labour were in power for 2 terms leading up to the crisis. They must take some responsibility.
> 
> We are always advised not to borrow to get out of debt - Labour will be contacting WONGA if they get in! :Hilarious
> 
> We disagree - that's fine. (I think we usually do on most things )


Yeah - don't think either of us will convince the other


----------



## Lurcherlad

jaycee05 said:


> Totally agree with this and has been provedit was the banks NOT Labour who caused the financial crisis


Believe that Ed stated on TV the other night that Labour were wrong to allow the banks too much freedom! 

Labour were in charge - it happened on their watch!


----------



## newfiesmum

MoggyBaby said:


> Further to my other thread,http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/wednesday-election-poll.398526/ , here is the election options for tomorrow:
> 
> _This is a private poll so no-one can see your answer and you absolutely do not have to vote.
> _
> This is just for fun. Let's see if PF can call it better than the 'official' pollsters are doing._ _


Why has UKIP got an asterisk?


----------



## Lurcherlad

Spellweaver said:


> Yeah - don't think either of us will convince the other


Yeah! I think we can probably agree that NONE of them offer a PERFECT alternative!


----------



## MoggyBaby

newfiesmum said:


> Why has UKIP got an asterisk?


If you have placed a vote on the poll, the asterisk will sit beside the option you chose so you can see who you voted for. The asterisk on the poll I see is next to Labour, who were my choice.


----------



## MoggyBaby

Lurcherlad said:


> Believe that Ed stated on TV the other night that Labour were wrong to allow the banks too much freedom!
> 
> Labour were in charge - it happened on their watch!


The Tories de-regulated the financial markets. Labour were supposed to reign them in but didn't and de-regulated the banks instead. Both of these combined to create the mess in 2009.

Both equally culpable in my eyes!


----------



## silvi

Lurcherlad said:


> Believe that Ed stated on TV the other night that Labour were wrong to allow the banks too much freedom!
> 
> Labour were in charge - it happened on their watch!


Yes he did.
He basically admitted that Labour gave the banks as much freedom as the Tories always give 
He also said that it was a mistake made by a previous Labour government and would not be happening under his watch.
So, the guy see's the mistake; is honest enough to admit it and apologise for it (even though he was not in that government); and says how he would make sure this doesn't happen again.
I would say that gives him and his party credit rather than doubt.


----------



## Lurcherlad

silvi said:


> Yes he did.
> He basically admitted that Labour gave the banks as much freedom as the Tories always give
> He also said that it was a mistake made by a previous Labour government and would not be happening under his watch.
> So, the guy see's the mistake; is honest enough to admit it and apologise for it (even though he was not in that government); and says how he would make sure this doesn't happen again.
> I would say that gives him and his party credit rather than doubt.


I would agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that he is a politician and there is an election going on! :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## CRL

petforum said:


> UKIP are higher than I would have thought. There's also a lot of people undecided which is surprising seeing as the vote is tomorrow.


i was undecided. it was either labour or green. from the letters throught the door both ave good policies, infcat i was leaning towards green, but as a majority tory area a vote for green would be a waste, so im voting labour instead.


----------



## silvi

Lurcherlad said:


> I would agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that he is a politician and there is an election going on! :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


Very true, lol!
But let's face it, if you're a politician you are damned if you do say something And damned if you don't


----------



## LinznMilly

Glad that agony's over :Hilarious .

I changed my mind at the very last minute and voted for a party I haven't mentioned on here.


----------



## newfiesmum

MoggyBaby said:


> If you have placed a vote on the poll, the asterisk will sit beside the option you chose so you can see who you voted for. The asterisk on the poll I see is next to Labour, who were my choice.


Oh, I see. So now everyone knows who I voted for!


----------



## MoggyBaby

newfiesmum said:


> Oh, I see. So now everyone knows who I voted for!


Don't worry about it. Not many of us are being shy about voicing our choices.


----------



## MoggyBaby

LinznMilly said:


> Glad that agony's over :Hilarious .
> 
> I changed my mind at the very last minute and voted for a party I haven't mentioned on here.


Are the Monster Raving Loony Party still going then????


----------



## LinznMilly

newfiesmum said:


> Oh, I see. So* now everyone knows who I voted for*!


Don't think so.  I think it's just you who sees who you voted for - not the forum.


----------



## DoodlesRule

JANICE199 said:


> *Hand on heart, i am confused as to why some people think we were worse off under Labour. Strange how we all see things differently.*


 Because even the Labour MPs have admitted they "got it wrong" on spending, on uncontrolled immigration etc


----------



## silvi

DoodlesRule said:


> Because even the Labour MPs have admitted they "got it wrong" on spending, on uncontrolled immigration etc


But that didn't mean that we were _worse off_ with Labour than with the Tories.

You only have to look at the Tory attempts to 'control' immigration and to 'balance' the economy to see that they have not lived up to their promises either. It was all bluster (and in the immigration control sense, nasty bluster too).
The difference is that Labour admitted they got _some_ things wrong when last in power, but it will be a cold day in hell before a Tory PM openly admits to making mistakes.


----------



## sharloid

Just been to vote. No choice to vote Greens. I was surprised at the choice for the locals, just a long list of Labour with a couple of independents.


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> Here....
> View attachment 230101


This current government is the cruelest government i have ever lived through & i lived through the miners strike (literally).

Five years of the coalition & this is what we've come to: . Longest fall in living standards since Queen Victoria, 90.000 homeless children, 13 million living in poverty, 913,000 relying on foodbanks, 1.4 million on zero hours contracts/workfare - low pay no pay , thousands of people dead because of benefit cuts & sanctions. Thousands of badgers inhumanely killed for nothing, the unraveling of the protection of irreplaceable habitat, promotion of fracking, tax breaks for fossil fuel industry, tax cuts for wind farms, demolition of our NHS/welfare state & so on ...


----------



## rona

jaycee05 said:


> How can UKIP be so hypocritical when Farage is all for hunting and friendly with the hunting fraternity, ?


I've been involved in the shooting world but I still love and respect animals. He was bought up a country boy. Doesn't mean his party will think the same. That is what free speech is about. At least you know what you are getting , unlike those career politicians, who will tell you what they think you want to hear


----------



## rona

So vote for someone who can stab their brother in the back 

Really trustworthy he's going to be


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> I've been involved in the shooting world but I still love and respect animals. He was bought up a country boy. Doesn't mean his party will think the same. That is what free speech is about. At least you know what you are getting , unlike those career politicians, who will tell you what thy think you want to hear


If people who enjoy killing animals for fun felt any sort of love or respect for them - they wouldn't do it.


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> So vote for someone who can stab their brother in the back
> 
> Really trustworthy he's going to be


Lol!
How exactly did he stab his brother in the back? 
They both stood for the leadership election. He won.

But I think that post of yours was a wind up....surely?


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> So vote for someone who can stab their brother in the back
> 
> Really trustworthy he's going to be


*Now now rona, He did not stab his brother in the back, he won fair and square.*


----------



## rona

silvi said:


> Lol!
> How exactly did he stab his brother in the back?
> They both stood for the leadership election. He won.
> 
> But I think that post of yours was a wind up....surely?


Why?

There's plenty of others that think the same. Including his own brother apparently.
Did you not hear him say himself that relationship with his brother is now strained?


----------



## rona

Nicola Sturgeon showed him up for being an out and out liar 3 times in that first debate.

Did none of you see that?


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Why?
> 
> There's plenty of others that think the same. Including his own brother apparently.
> Did you not hear him say himself that relationship with his brother is now strained?


_Apparently_ is a nice word, isn't it? 

I'm not surprised if the relationship is strained.
With all the media attention given to it it is probably embarrassing for both of them.
Still doesn't equate to a back stab though.


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Nicola Sturgeon showed him up for being an out and out liar 3 times in that first debate.
> 
> Did none of you see that?


Yes I did.
And she disagreed with some of the points Ed made, yes.
But I'm struggling to see where she called him a liar?


----------



## rona

silvi said:


> _Apparently_ is a nice word, isn't it?
> 
> I'm not surprised if the relationship is strained.
> With all the media attention given to it it is probably embarrassing for both of them.
> Still doesn't equate to a back stab though.


When the man himself says so, who am I to argue. I go on what is said out of their own mouths, not what the papers or broadcaster say.


----------



## rona

silvi said:


> Yes I did.
> And she disagreed with some of the points Ed made, yes.
> But I'm struggling to see where she called him a liar?


Go look at it again. I sure as hell am not sitting through that again to prove what I heard

He ignored her all times


----------



## noushka05

A new warning from 'Our NHS' about the dangers voting for the Tories https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ca...easons-you-really-can't-trust-tories-with-nhs

*1. They're making huge, hidden cuts to hospital budgets*

Cameron famously promised to 'cut the deficit, not the NHS'.

But NHS hospitals have seen across the board 10% cuts to the cash they get from government for treating us (around ¾ of their income).

No wonder A&Es are in crisis.

Government claims to have increased NHS funding frequently ignore inflation - so much so that the UK Statistics Authority told them to stop claiming to have increased expenditure.

Any money the Government HAS put in has to fund the huge costs of administrating the NHS as a market, not to mention paying huge PFI debts to the banks, before it gets to frontline healthcare.

*2. They've increased privatisation 500% in the last year - and it's harming patients*

During the election campaign we've heard vigorous denials of NHS privatisation from the Tories. They've claimed that the amount of the NHS privatised under Labour was 5% - and it has now risen to only 6%.

But these are old figures, before the impact of the Health & Social Care Act. In fact privatisation has soared by 500% in the last year, the latest figures show.

David Cameron told us recently that the NHS "is in the public sector, and will stay in the public sector". In fact, there's a firesale going on.

From ambulances to eye operations, private firms are taking cash and 'easy' patients from the NHS - leaving the NHS underfunded and struggling to survive.

And they're making a mess of the bits they take over, too. Controversial G4S has run into criticism of its ambulance and cleaning provision. Serco was alleged to have been providing only one GP for the whole of Cornwall's out of hours service. Tory-donating Circle took taxpayers money then walked away from Hinchingbrooke hospital after inspectors revealed the privatised hospital was providing the worst standard of 'caring' anywhere in the country, with evidence of severe staff shortages, fluids out of reach, patients routinely left in soiled beds, and worse.

*3. They have some sneaky plans about how to make us pay to use the NHS*

Cameron's lead health advisor, Nick Seddon, has advocated charging patients for GP visits. Cameron's promised the NHS will stay 'free at the point of need'. But the organisation that Cameron plucked Nick Seddon from, Reform, has suggested politicians could simply redefine what currently counts as 'the NHS' as 'social care' - so you could be charged for it, even as politicians claim to have kept their promises. For example, the hospital bed you recover in after an operation could be redefined as 'hotel fees', charged at a rate of £75 a night, the NHS Confederation (which lobbies for NHS and private providers) has suggested. Reform suggest that this can be funded by older people having to re-mortgage their homes to pay for healthcare in future. The British Medical Association recently warned that charging will be 'inescapable', unless we change political course.

*4. They have some even sneakier plans about how to make us pay for our healthcare*

Cameron's Health & Social Care Act abolished the government's duty to provide us with healthcare, which had existed in some form since the NHS was created in 1948.

So now, it's much easier to deny people the healthcare they need. Ministers can now just distance themselves from 'local decisions' as the NHS withers and people are forced to stay in pain, or go private.

Already hip operations are denied to people until they are in extreme pain, and people are being told they can only have a cataract operation or hearing aids for one eye or one ear - not both. Recently Devon went a step further, denying_all_ routine operations to overweight people and smokers, as a cost-saving exercise. Devon was forced to partially back down - but experts say there isnothing to legally stop this happening in future, and ongoing cuts mean such plans are almost certain to raise their ugly head again.

The Tories are also presiding over a roll-out of 'Personal Health Budgets'. In social care, this system already means many people have to 'top up' from their own pockets - and top-ups are likely to follow in the NHS, given the Tories' enthusiasm for 'integrating' health and social care. We're already putting the charging systems in place under the guise of addressing so-called 'health tourism'.

*5. The Tories have enthusiastically adopted the plan for a further £22bn of closures - disguised as an £8bn 'increase'.*

Cameron's appointment as NHS boss (and former United Health Vice President) Simon Stevens has put together a plan for £22bn more NHS cuts, meaning politicians only have to come up with an extra £8bn to fill the NHS funding gap which Stevens admits is actually £30bn.

After years of cuts, most hospitals are already deeply in the red. We already have fewer hospital beds and doctors than most other Western nations.

Rather than reversing this, Stevens has suggested £7.5bn could be saved by selling hospitals off, promising 'this is only the start'.

Campaigners suspect that hospital closures are being hidden til after the election - suspicions confirmed in Epsom where, having just reassured local people their hospital was safe, management consultants were overheard on a train discussing how it was to be closed.

They've already made it much easier overrule local people and close hospitals by introducing the 'Hospital Closure Clause', in direct contravention of all their promises about 'no decision about me without me'.

Jeremy Hunt told the pre-election Channel 4 News NHS debate that "it would be a disaster to tear up the plan".

Frankly, it's a disaster if we don't.

*6. Any extra money they do find, is being wasted on forcing through more privatisation*

Scandalously, even as hospital waiting lists rise, over £10bn a year of our money is being wasted on trying to make 'competition' and 'markets' work in the NHS - just so the health and insurance fat-cats can get a chance at running services for a profit.

Every doctor and nurse in the NHS will tell you how much time they waste on paperwork so that every interaction with a patient can be priced, invoiced, and increasingly, traded. Then there's the vast amount of time and money spent onpreparing 'bids', and ticking quango's boxes, just to see off the private firms hovering. The sums involved are vast - just one tender can cost taxpayers a million pounds - and there are thousands of such tenders underway or in the pipeline.

The Tory leadership has failed so far to support the NHS Reinstatement Bill put forward by Professor Allyson Pollock and introduced by a cross-party alliance of Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour and Lib Dem backbenchers, that would curtail this market waste.

*7. Their privatisation plans are getting even sneakier*

As political opposition to privatisation mounts, even the privatisation decisions themselves are being taken away from local health bosses and handed over to private companies - often with huge potential conflicts of interest. Virgin, which runs dozens of health facilities under the NHS logo already, has already won a new kind of 'lead provider' contract that enables it to secretively sub-contract elderly healthcare to whoever it likes. And other clever forms of disguised privatisation are being pushed, with Cameron's policy right-hand man Frances Maude MP saying all hospitals should leave the NHS and become so-called 'mutuals' - and eight having quietly started the process already.

*8. They've got some really sinister plans to force patients to accept unproven treatments on pain of having their benefit cut*

What more can you say, really?

No-one voted for all of this, last time.

You've got today to vote for something different.

_*Like this piece? Please donate to OurNHS *_*here *_*to help keep us producing the NHS stories that matter. Thank you*_


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> When the man himself says so, who am I to argue. I go on what is said out of their own mouths, not what the papers or broadcaster say.


It was your use of the word apparently that made me think that you had heard David's words from somewhere else.
Now, if you heard him say them himself, fair enough.

Doesn't make it right though


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> When the man himself says so, who am I to argue. I go on what is said out of their own mouths, not what the papers or broadcaster say.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2993290/Ed-Miliband-asked-regrets-stabbing-brother-back.html

*Here Ed doesn't say he stabbed his brother in the back.*


----------



## Mr Gizmo

LinznMilly said:


> Don't think so.  I think it's just you who sees who you voted for - not the forum.


But Newfiesmum asked why UKIP had an asterix against it,we now know.


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Go look at it again. I sure as hell am not sitting through that again to prove what I heard
> 
> He ignored her all times


Ah, I remember her shouting at him a couple of times when he was in the middle of answering someone else.

It was a debate. I agree with a lot of what Nicola Sturgeon says, but she played that debate for all she was worth. Had Cameron been there, she would have played it against him, but as he was not, Miliband received her shouts instead.

But I sure as hell am not sitting through that again either to find out exactly what the shouts were and why


----------



## Pawscrossed

rona said:


> So vote for someone who can stab their brother in the back
> 
> Really trustworthy he's going to be


But it's a vote for party not personality.


----------



## shetlandlover

Unfortunately I voted Tories...

I call it a tactical vote rather than who I actually wanted to vote for (green party), I voted Tories because 1. I believe they need 1 more term in to fix more of the issues caused previously and 2. I want to keep UKIP out. 

In my local election I could only vote Lab or Con...so had no green party for my area which sucks. My area is mostly Tories so my vote would have been wasted otherwise. 

I really really really hope UKIP don't get in.


----------



## Pawscrossed

Ang2 said:


> UKIP are getting votes because people are genuinely concerned about mass, uncontrolled immigration. You don't have to be racist, to be worried. So many votes on this forum poll,, yet they remain mostly anonymous, due to the vitriol and screams of 'racist' from other forum members.


Immigration is only one issue. Nobody really should vote on one issue alone when the rest of the UKIP manifesto is a dung heap of crassness.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> So vote for someone who can stab their brother in the back
> 
> Really trustworthy he's going to be


David Miliband's voted for him Rona.

*David Miliband* @DMiliband · 3h3 hours ago
If you are British and can get to a polling station, please vote, and please vote #Labour #Ed4PM


----------



## MoggyBaby

rona said:


> Why?
> 
> There's plenty of others that think the same. Including his own brother apparently.
> Did you not hear him say himself that relationship with his brother is now strained?


2 family members went for the same job. Both family members had different qualities to bring to the role. The company chose one for the position.

How is that stabbing the other in the back? The 'company' made the choice on the candidate they preferred for the job.


----------



## rona

silvi said:


> Ah, I remember her shouting at him a couple of times when he was in the middle of answering someone else.
> 
> It was a debate. I agree with a lot of what Nicola Sturgeon says, but she played that debate for all she was worth. Had Cameron been there, she would have played it against him, but as he was not, Miliband received her shouts instead.
> 
> But I sure as hell am not sitting through that again either to find out exactly what the shouts were and why


It was the 2nd April debate


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> I've been involved in the shooting world but I still love and respect animals. He was bought up a country boy. Doesn't mean his party will think the same. That is what free speech is about. At least you know what you are getting , unlike those career politicians, who will tell you what they think you want to hear


If you think Farage is not a career politician you are easily hoodwinked


----------



## rona

Pawscrossed said:


> But it's a vote for party not personality.


That's true, but what kind of cronies has/will he surrounded himself with when he can put his family through that?


----------



## Spellweaver

noushka05 said:


> If people who enjoy killing animals for fun felt any sort of love or respect for them - they wouldn't do it.


Spot on Noush - and similarly those of us who do respect animals do not respect anyone - politician or otherwise - who either kills them for "fun"or supports killing them for "fun"..


----------



## noushka05

Here we are, 5 years under the Tories, in less than 3 minutes. "Let us finish the job off"


----------



## Spellweaver

shetlandlover said:


> Unfortunately I voted Tories...
> 
> I call it a tactical vote rather than who I actually wanted to vote for (green party), I voted Tories because 1. I believe they need 1 more term in to fix more of the issues caused previously and 2. I want to keep UKIP out.
> 
> In my local election I could only vote Lab or Con...so had no green party for my area which sucks. My area is mostly Tories so my vote would have been wasted otherwise.
> 
> I really really really hope UKIP don't get in.


As the only way UKIP will get in is if the Tories need them to form a coalition, you might just have been instrumental in dashing your own hopes about them gettting in


----------



## JANICE199

noushka05 said:


> A new warning from 'Our NHS' about the dangers voting for the Tories https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ca...easons-you-really-can't-trust-tories-with-nhs
> 
> *1. They're making huge, hidden cuts to hospital budgets*
> 
> Cameron famously promised to 'cut the deficit, not the NHS'.
> 
> But NHS hospitals have seen across the board 10% cuts to the cash they get from government for treating us (around ¾ of their income).
> 
> No wonder A&Es are in crisis.
> 
> Government claims to have increased NHS funding frequently ignore inflation - so much so that the UK Statistics Authority told them to stop claiming to have increased expenditure.
> 
> Any money the Government HAS put in has to fund the huge costs of administrating the NHS as a market, not to mention paying huge PFI debts to the banks, before it gets to frontline healthcare.
> 
> *2. They've increased privatisation 500% in the last year - and it's harming patients*
> 
> During the election campaign we've heard vigorous denials of NHS privatisation from the Tories. They've claimed that the amount of the NHS privatised under Labour was 5% - and it has now risen to only 6%.
> 
> But these are old figures, before the impact of the Health & Social Care Act. In fact privatisation has soared by 500% in the last year, the latest figures show.
> 
> David Cameron told us recently that the NHS "is in the public sector, and will stay in the public sector". In fact, there's a firesale going on.
> 
> From ambulances to eye operations, private firms are taking cash and 'easy' patients from the NHS - leaving the NHS underfunded and struggling to survive.
> 
> And they're making a mess of the bits they take over, too. Controversial G4S has run into criticism of its ambulance and cleaning provision. Serco was alleged to have been providing only one GP for the whole of Cornwall's out of hours service. Tory-donating Circle took taxpayers money then walked away from Hinchingbrooke hospital after inspectors revealed the privatised hospital was providing the worst standard of 'caring' anywhere in the country, with evidence of severe staff shortages, fluids out of reach, patients routinely left in soiled beds, and worse.
> 
> *3. They have some sneaky plans about how to make us pay to use the NHS*
> 
> Cameron's lead health advisor, Nick Seddon, has advocated charging patients for GP visits. Cameron's promised the NHS will stay 'free at the point of need'. But the organisation that Cameron plucked Nick Seddon from, Reform, has suggested politicians could simply redefine what currently counts as 'the NHS' as 'social care' - so you could be charged for it, even as politicians claim to have kept their promises. For example, the hospital bed you recover in after an operation could be redefined as 'hotel fees', charged at a rate of £75 a night, the NHS Confederation (which lobbies for NHS and private providers) has suggested. Reform suggest that this can be funded by older people having to re-mortgage their homes to pay for healthcare in future. The British Medical Association recently warned that charging will be 'inescapable', unless we change political course.
> 
> *4. They have some even sneakier plans about how to make us pay for our healthcare*
> 
> Cameron's Health & Social Care Act abolished the government's duty to provide us with healthcare, which had existed in some form since the NHS was created in 1948.
> 
> So now, it's much easier to deny people the healthcare they need. Ministers can now just distance themselves from 'local decisions' as the NHS withers and people are forced to stay in pain, or go private.
> 
> Already hip operations are denied to people until they are in extreme pain, and people are being told they can only have a cataract operation or hearing aids for one eye or one ear - not both. Recently Devon went a step further, denying_all_ routine operations to overweight people and smokers, as a cost-saving exercise. Devon was forced to partially back down - but experts say there isnothing to legally stop this happening in future, and ongoing cuts mean such plans are almost certain to raise their ugly head again.
> 
> The Tories are also presiding over a roll-out of 'Personal Health Budgets'. In social care, this system already means many people have to 'top up' from their own pockets - and top-ups are likely to follow in the NHS, given the Tories' enthusiasm for 'integrating' health and social care. We're already putting the charging systems in place under the guise of addressing so-called 'health tourism'.
> 
> *5. The Tories have enthusiastically adopted the plan for a further £22bn of closures - disguised as an £8bn 'increase'.*
> 
> Cameron's appointment as NHS boss (and former United Health Vice President) Simon Stevens has put together a plan for £22bn more NHS cuts, meaning politicians only have to come up with an extra £8bn to fill the NHS funding gap which Stevens admits is actually £30bn.
> 
> After years of cuts, most hospitals are already deeply in the red. We already have fewer hospital beds and doctors than most other Western nations.
> 
> Rather than reversing this, Stevens has suggested £7.5bn could be saved by selling hospitals off, promising 'this is only the start'.
> 
> Campaigners suspect that hospital closures are being hidden til after the election - suspicions confirmed in Epsom where, having just reassured local people their hospital was safe, management consultants were overheard on a train discussing how it was to be closed.
> 
> They've already made it much easier overrule local people and close hospitals by introducing the 'Hospital Closure Clause', in direct contravention of all their promises about 'no decision about me without me'.
> 
> Jeremy Hunt told the pre-election Channel 4 News NHS debate that "it would be a disaster to tear up the plan".
> 
> Frankly, it's a disaster if we don't.
> 
> *6. Any extra money they do find, is being wasted on forcing through more privatisation*
> 
> Scandalously, even as hospital waiting lists rise, over £10bn a year of our money is being wasted on trying to make 'competition' and 'markets' work in the NHS - just so the health and insurance fat-cats can get a chance at running services for a profit.
> 
> Every doctor and nurse in the NHS will tell you how much time they waste on paperwork so that every interaction with a patient can be priced, invoiced, and increasingly, traded. Then there's the vast amount of time and money spent onpreparing 'bids', and ticking quango's boxes, just to see off the private firms hovering. The sums involved are vast - just one tender can cost taxpayers a million pounds - and there are thousands of such tenders underway or in the pipeline.
> 
> The Tory leadership has failed so far to support the NHS Reinstatement Bill put forward by Professor Allyson Pollock and introduced by a cross-party alliance of Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour and Lib Dem backbenchers, that would curtail this market waste.
> 
> *7. Their privatisation plans are getting even sneakier*
> 
> As political opposition to privatisation mounts, even the privatisation decisions themselves are being taken away from local health bosses and handed over to private companies - often with huge potential conflicts of interest. Virgin, which runs dozens of health facilities under the NHS logo already, has already won a new kind of 'lead provider' contract that enables it to secretively sub-contract elderly healthcare to whoever it likes. And other clever forms of disguised privatisation are being pushed, with Cameron's policy right-hand man Frances Maude MP saying all hospitals should leave the NHS and become so-called 'mutuals' - and eight having quietly started the process already.
> 
> *8. They've got some really sinister plans to force patients to accept unproven treatments on pain of having their benefit cut*
> 
> What more can you say, really?
> 
> No-one voted for all of this, last time.
> 
> You've got today to vote for something different.
> 
> _*Like this piece? Please donate to OurNHS *_*here *_*to help keep us producing the NHS stories that matter. Thank you*_


*That makes for pretty scare reading noushka. People should be very worried if this lot get in again. Only the rich will be smiling.*


----------



## shetlandlover

Spellweaver said:


> As the only way UKIP will get in is if the Tories need them to form a coalition, you might just have been instrumental in dashing your own hopes about them gettting in


God don't say that Val!

It's taken me months to decide who to vote for and was still undecided till about 1 this morning. LOL

I've always been a big supporter of Labour, but I just feel we need more time with the tories. From what I've been told and read it seems that UKIP might actually do better than Labour so it might be a two horse race. :Facepalm


----------



## noushka05

This is brilliant by Charlotte Church. I'd never given her much though before but shes comes across as a really compassionate person, with strong social & environmental values . https://charlottesayshmmm.wordpress.com/

*DEMOCRACY IN TRACTION*
May 6, 2015charlottesayshmm7 Comments

Dear fellow voters,

Tomorrow we will decide on who will govern us for the next five years, and it will be the first general election that I actively participate in. In previous elections I felt that by voting I was condoning a broken system, the illusion of democracy, and I didn't want any part of the whole sordid affair. What's the bloody point? They're all the same aren't they?

And then the Tories got in.

I have to say I was reticent to speak up at all. I don't seek to be the target of trolls and my objective isn't to upset anyone. My opinions are no more valid than anyone elses, but I have a platform that most don't, and I 'm regularly told that I should use it. I should be clear that I am not a Labour party member, and I find it easier to get behind the full-blooded policies of the more progressive fringe parties (among which UKIP are certainly not counted).

However, the first past the post system leaves me with little choice. In the constituency I live the Tories have held a marginal seat since 2010. The potential damage that another 5 years of Tory rule would do to our public services, the structure of our economy, our relationships with other countries around the world, and most importantly to the general wellbeing of the British people, is utterly intolerable.

I would like to vote Plaid or Green. But no matter how much I've been told not to vote tactically, these other parties simply have no chance of winning this seat. Additionally I feel that if I do vote Plaid or Green, and the Tories hold the seat, then I will have been instrumental in securing it for them.

What if the Tories get in? What if they get in a coalition with UKIP and the DUP? Jesus! UKIP say they want to close down our borders to immigrants. The rhetoric I've heard in my community by those who are planning to vote UKIP is "I wan'em all out". Who are exactly are "they all"? Is it black people, is it muslims, eastern europeans, Is it the Spanish, is it the LGBT community, is this about gender, is it about being able bodied? Where do they draw the line? The end point of their way of thinking is terrifying.

Nigel Farage has got a romanticised view of the past, that he wants to turn our future into: some Postman Pat paradise, where you know the name of the milkman; where you HAVE a milkman! It's 2015, Nige! Trying to turn back time is as futile as trying to get an energy company to lower its prices.

This country needs change. We need to sort out our house. The people are being ripped off and exploited by multinational companies, by the media, by our own elected officials, and all of this has got to stop.

Whether Ed Miliband and the Labour party are the right people to sort it all out is a moot point. David Cameron has presided over the most capricious, shambolic government that there has been in my lifetime. They are scandalous, and they cannot be the right people for the job.

So much of the electioneering that those on the right have done has been based upon fear. Fear of immigration, fear of economic instability, fear of welfare claimants and the unemployed. The politics of fear is the politics of control. If we allow ourselves to be scared of the bogeyman we will find ourselves isolated internationally, without a welfare system, and with an even more pronounced poverty gap than we already have. If the economic definitions of Left and Right are that the Left want to increase taxes and spend on public services, and the Right want to lower taxes and reduce spending on public services, then never has it been more glaringly obvious that the Rightwing getting their own way. Multi-national companies are paying less tax than ever before, whilst the NHS has already been carved up and is primed to be sold off. The trickle-down economics that we have unwillingly propped up since the 60s is so far from functioning as to make it farcical.

This election is important. Mostly it's important in that it can get lots of people engaging with politics. But it's also a massive distraction from the issues that really matter. With our short-termist outlook, how are we going to prepare ourselves for the oncoming challenges: climate change, future economic crashes that will be deeper and more painful than this last one, the way we help to sort out instability in foreign regions, the way we deal with foreign aggressors, global overpopulation, sustainability, and how we take to task those who have ripped us off financially for decades, those who have pilfered public money, those who have consistently failed to contribute (despite being the highest earners in society), those who run media monopolies and dictate government policy through the intimidating power of their influence, and those who've ve protected them all. What we all need to do is start engaging in serious discourse about these matters, before we really do go to hell in a hand-basket.

Mr. Miliband, incremental changes in tax policy are not going to change anything. If you are the right man for the job then when you get into Downing Street you should show the world that the United Kingdom can be a trailblazer in progressive politics, by implementing systemic reformand by fighting the excessive power of capitalism and putting that power back where it rightly belongs, in the hands of the people.

You can vote or not vote, that is your right. But please for the good of us all, engage.

Love to you all,

Charlotte Church


----------



## JANICE199

shetlandlover said:


> God don't say that Val!
> 
> It's taken me months to decide who to vote for and was still undecided till about 1 this morning. LOL
> 
> I've always been a big supporter of Labour, but I just feel we need more time with the tories. From what I've been told and read it seems that UKIP might actually do better than Labour so it might be a two horse race. :Facepalm


*Give the Tories more time and more people will suffer, unless they are rich. Nothing that this government have done has been for the less well off in our society. They should remember, they are there to serve the whole of the country, not the selected few.*


----------



## Goblin

If you are British and can get to a polling station, please vote, and please vote Monster Raving Looney Party.  Either that or wreck economy party or hit the poor party.


----------



## Pupcakes

Voted Labour


----------



## shetlandlover

Surely Labour are just as likely to form a coalition with UKIP as the tories?


----------



## MoggyBaby

shetlandlover said:


> Surely Labour are just as likely to form a coalition with UKIP as the tories?


UKIP have got far more in common with the Tories that they have with Labour. If Ukip & Labour were to collude together, it really would be a case of 'opposites attract'.


----------



## shetlandlover

JANICE199 said:


> *Give the Tories more time and more people will suffer, unless they are rich. Nothing that this government have done has been for the less well off in our society. They should remember, they are there to serve the whole of the country, not the selected few.*


I agree that some of the things the tories have done is wrong. BUT regardless of who you vote for someone will disagree. 
There has yet to be a party that hasn't pissed off someone.. 
Vote Labour you get told you're voting for the party that put the country into the mess it's in.
Vote Tories and you get told you're being unfair to those with less money.
Vote UKIP and you get told you're encouraging racism, sexism and stupid policy.
Vote Green and you get told it's a wasted vote. 
Don't vote and you get told (especially if you are a woman) that you are letting those who fought for our rights to vote.

There's no right or wrong vote....if I could I'd take certain policy's from each of them and combine them and make them do it that way but it doesn't work like that.


----------



## shetlandlover

MoggyBaby said:


> UKIP have got far more in common with the Tories that they have with Labour. If Ukip & Labour were to collude together, it really would be a case of 'opposites attract'.


Farage and Cameron don't get on, back in November Farage went on record saying he'd be happy to work with Labour to keep Cameron out.


----------



## MoggyBaby

shetlandlover said:


> Farage and Cameron don't get on, back in November Farage went on record saying he'd be happy to work with Labour to keep Cameron out.


I think you'll find he will work with anyone who will have them!! The question is "who will want to work with them?" and the answer is almost no-one!


----------



## shetlandlover

MoggyBaby said:


> I think you'll find he will work with anyone who will have them!! The question is "who will want to work with them?" and the answer is almost no-one!


Exactly...although I'd not be surprised if UKIP get in on their own....seems a lot of people are voting them this year.


----------



## noushka05

Comedian David Schneider's just tweeted this - 'poem for the general election' .


----------



## noushka05

shetlandlover said:


> Farage and Cameron don't get on, back in November Farage went on record saying he'd be happy to work with Labour to keep Cameron out.


Labour(like the Greens, SNP & Plaid Cymru ) wouldn't touch UKIP with someone elses barge pole. There is no common ground between their policies SL. Farage has said they'd go into coalition with the tories (ukip are tories afterall lol) http://www.theguardian.com/politics...eron-conservatives-block-labour-snp-coalition

And if Cameron would team up with the DUP he'd team up with any rubbish.


----------



## MoggyBaby

noushka05 said:


> Comedian David Schneider's just tweeted this - 'poem for the general election' .


Havin' it!!!! (At least I'm an honest thief!!!  )


----------



## Goblin




----------



## Spellweaver

shetlandlover said:


> God don't say that Val!
> 
> It's taken me months to decide who to vote for and was still undecided till about 1 this morning. LOL
> 
> I've always been a big supporter of Labour, but I just feel we need more time with the tories. From what I've been told and read it seems that UKIP might actually do better than Labour so it might be a two horse race. :Facepalm


Aw heck - don't want to disappoint you and I don't know about your constituency, but nationwide they don't have a snowball in hell's chance of being the second party.



shetlandlover said:


> Surely Labour are just as likely to form a coalition with UKIP as the tories?


Well, I can't see either Labour or the Tories getting a big enough majority to govern without a coalition, but UKIP's policies are far closer to Tory policies than Labour policies. UKIP are really Tory with added racism, homophobia and misogyny - so the "natural" party for them to form a coalition with would be the Tories. I do think they'll replace the Lib-Dems as the third "also ran" party, which would make only them and the SNP viable as coalition partners. I can't see there being any way the SNP would ever support the Tories, so that only leaves UKIP.

And a Tory/UKIP coalition is my worst nightmare for the country. Five years of that and all that will be left of our country will be the white rich racing around on their horses hunting imported foxes (because they'll have killed all the native foxes by reintroducing fox hunting; they'll have killed off al the poor, elderly and disabled by slashing what little benefits they have left, and they will have deported anyone who isn't white anglo-saxon and has lived in this country for several generations).


----------



## JANICE199

*I just want to put this in, when will we know the results, ie. roughly what time? I need to know when i can go to bed. lol *


----------



## MoggyBaby

JANICE199 said:


> *I just want to put this in, when will we know the results, ie. roughly what time? I need to know when i can go to bed. lol *


Advised this morning that the bulk of the results will be in by 7-8am tomorrow morning. A few stragglers after that but - unless it is REALLY close - they should not make a difference to the result overall.

My hubs is planning on staying up to watch it all. Nutter!!!!


----------



## JANICE199

MoggyBaby said:


> Advised this morning that the bulk of the results will be in by 7-8am tomorrow morning. A few stragglers after that but - unless it is REALLY close - they should not make a difference to the result overall.
> 
> My hubs is planning on staying up to watch it all. Nutter!!!!


*Why did i think that last time around, it was late at night? Oh well, a good nights sleep is on the cards then. lol*


----------



## MoggyBaby

JANICE199 said:


> *Why did i think that last time around, it was late at night? Oh well, a good nights sleep is on the cards then. lol*


The last few elections have seen the first result come in before midnight - Sunderland - and then a steady stream through the night after that.


----------



## noushka05

Aren't Greens great . The Green candidate for Eltham is telling supporters to vote Labour instead. http://gu.com/p/48749/stw#block-554b635be4b0fd459e538e8a… #*GE2015*





MoggyBaby said:


> Havin' it!!!! (At least I'm an honest thief!!!  )


LOL I'm just a regular thief:Wideyed - I stole it on the sly



MoggyBaby said:


> Advised this morning that the bulk of the results will be in by 7-8am tomorrow morning. A few stragglers after that but - unless it is REALLY close - they should not make a difference to the result overall.
> 
> My hubs is planning on staying up to watch it all. Nutter!!!!


My Cousin & her hubby are sitting up all night as well - they've even got a bottle of champagne for the occasion lol


----------



## Bisbow

If Milleband gets to no10 he will be PM in name only. He will be under Nicola Sturgens thumb and Angela Mercals(spelling) heel. We will be at their mercy, heaven help us


----------



## PawsOnMe

Voted Green in the actual poll (put labour in the PF one but I changed my mind just before the polling station and followed who I actually want in rather than a lesser of two evils.)


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> Cameron's lead health advisor, Nick Seddon, has advocated charging patients for GP visits.


How could anyone think that a bad idea? It is just blindingly obvious that you don't manage an increasingly scarce resource by giving it away willy nilly.

So we have sliding scale of charges, depening on income, from say £0 to £100. Let's say the average is £30. Let's assume that a lot of time wasters fall away but they are counterbalanced by population growth and age distribution of the population, so that consultation rates level off where they are at 350 million - ish....

That's £10 billion for making one simple change to the system. That could be quite useful to the NHS I would think, no?


----------



## Goblin

Like to see any successful company which doesn't include brainstorming sessions, including possibly unworkable/stupid ideas to get to ones which work and are successful. Advocated is such a great word. What is doesn't mean is implement.


----------



## havoc

All parties will happily team up with anyone if it gets them sitting where they want, just as all candidates will have been prepared to lie through their teeth from the moment they were touting around for their first seat. Slimy dishonesty is built into the system and only those who are good at it ever get adopted to stand for election.


----------



## noushka05

Due to the restructuring of the NHS we are now wasting billions, billions that could have been spent directly on care. You need to look at the big picture Satori, they no longer have to provide any care.


----------



## CRL

Satori said:


> How could anyone think that a bad idea? It is just blindingly obvious that you don't manage an increasingly scarce resource by giving it away willy nilly.
> 
> So we have sliding scale of charges, depening on income, from say £0 to £100. Let's say the average is £30. Let's assume that a lot of time wasters fall away but they are counterbalanced by population growth and age distribution of the population, so that consultation rates level off where they are at 350 million - ish....
> 
> That's £10 billion for making one simple change to the system. That could be quite useful to the NHS I would think, no?


another outgoing alot of people wont be able to afford. atm its deciding whether to put food on the table or heat the house. soon it will be going to the doctor, putting food on the table or heating. 
i need to go to the doctors to get repeats, just a 5 minute appoitment to say i can go on the pill again for another 6 months or to say the inhaler i use is the right one. why should i pay for that, when i already pay for the life saving treatment i need. the ammount of illnesses undiagnosed will go up because people wont be able to afford to go to the doctors.


----------



## MoggyBaby

Satori said:


> How could anyone think that a bad idea? It is just blindingly obvious that you don't manage an increasingly scarce resource by giving it away willy nilly.
> 
> So we have sliding scale of charges, depening on income, from say £0 to £100. Let's say the average is £30. Let's assume that a lot of time wasters fall away but they are counterbalanced by population growth and age distribution of the population, so that consultation rates level off where they are at 350 million - ish....
> 
> That's £10 billion for making one simple change to the system. *That could be quite useful to the NHS I would think, no*?


Err..... in a word NO!!!!!

I already pay a wedge every month out of my hard-earned wage packet to support the NHS. Am I supposed to pay twice????

Maybe a better idea would be a set number of free visits per year and a charge after that EXCEPT for people who must see the doctor regularly because they have very serious illnesses. This would deter the time-wasters but not be detrimental to rare visitors or the seriously ill.


----------



## Satori

CRL said:


> why should i pay for that


Well someone has to.


----------



## rona

Pupcakes said:


> Voted Labour


My father did all his life when they actually looked after the working man and had integrity

I wouldn't spit on this lot now


----------



## Satori

MoggyBaby said:


> Maybe a better idea would be a set number of free visits per year and a charge after that EXCEPT for people who must see the doctor regularly because they have very serious illnesses.


There is a consultation document out there somewhere now you mention it that suggests limiting the max number of free visits to 5 per year. All good stuff imo.


----------



## havoc

Let's say I have an income of half a million a year, is it OK to charge me a few pounds for a GP visit?


----------



## CRL

Satori said:


> Well someone has to.


yes someone does need to pay for it, but again its the worst off that will be the ones doing it, and dont really need another outgoing they cant afford.


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> Well someone has to.


We are already paying for it with our taxes. Please watch that video to understand.


----------



## rona

Satori said:


> There is a consultation document out there somewhere now you mention it that suggests limiting the max number of free visits to 5 per year. All good stuff imo.


As long as it doesn't penalize the really sick


----------



## Pupcakes

rona said:


> My father did all his life when they actually looked after the working man and had integrity
> 
> I wouldn't spit on this lot now


I think its a case of voting for the lesser of the evils now sadly


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> We are already paying for it with our taxes.


Oh, ok then there's no problem. Here was me thinking the NHS had a funding gap.


----------



## shetlandlover

I'd like to think the tax me and my husband pay would cover any doc appointments.

If I was given the choice, really ill and need to see a doctor or putting food on the table for me and my husband then food will win....guess that's one way to solve the issue of money if people are too poor to go to the doctor they'll soon die....


----------



## havoc

_if people are too poor to go to the doctor they'll soon die...._
Who would be too poor? Presumably the poorest are those who need state benefits and they wouldn't pay anyway.


----------



## noushka05

Please watch the video Satori lol (It doesnt let Labour off the hook either)


----------



## Goblin




----------



## DoodlesRule

rona said:


> My father did all his life when they actually looked after the working man and had integrity
> 
> I wouldn't spit on this lot now


My father has seen many governments come & go during his 85 years, despite always doing low paid heavy manual work he tells me he was always much worse off under Labour.

The current bunch are just damn hypocrites, champagne socialists telling the plebs what to think, what to eat, how to live their lives whilst doing the complete opposite themselves


----------



## CRL

DoodlesRule said:


> The current bunch are just damn hypocrites, champagne socialists telling the plebs what to think, what to eat, how to live their lives whilst doing the complete opposite themselves


that statement could work for all the parties.


----------



## rona

Pupcakes said:


> I think its a case of voting for the lesser of the evils now sadly


The last proper Labour politician with integrity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Mowlam

And look what that little shyster and his puppets did to her


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> The last proper Labour politician with integrity
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Mowlam
> 
> And look what that little shyster and his puppets did to her


There are still a fair few really decent, principled labour politicians, fighting for social justice.

Heres one of them


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> There are still a fair few really decent, principled labour politicians, fighting for social justice.


Define social justice.. normally that's take what others earn.


----------



## Spellweaver

Bisbow said:


> If Milleband gets to no10 he will be PM in name only. He will be under Nicola Sturgens thumb and Angela Mercals(spelling) heel. We will be at their mercy, heaven help us


I don't agree with you in the least - but this country could do a lot worse than follow the economic example set by Germany.



Satori said:


> How could anyone think that a bad idea? It is just blindingly obvious that you don't manage an increasingly scarce resource by giving it away willy nilly.
> 
> So we have sliding scale of charges, depening on income, from say £0 to £100. Let's say the average is £30. Let's assume that a lot of time wasters fall away but they are counterbalanced by population growth and age distribution of the population, so that consultation rates level off where they are at 350 million - ish....
> 
> That's £10 billion for making one simple change to the system. That could be quite useful to the NHS I would think, no?


And how much of that saving of £10 billion will be swallowed up in the costs of administrating the system?

Still, it provides another opportunity for the next Tory government to move money from the poor to the rich - they could take away the means testing, sack all the administrators, say everyone has to pay the full £100,and then give millionaires another tax cut with the money instead.


----------



## Spellweaver

noushka05 said:


> There are still a fair few really decent, principled labour politicians, fighting for social justice.
> 
> Heres one of them


He certainly is - and I'm glad to say I voted for him today


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> Please watch the video Satori lol (It doesnt let Labour off the hook either)


Just started it.


----------



## noushka05

3


----------



## Ang2

Oh dear!

Google Search tips Cameron to win election - and Nigel Farage's Ukip will beat Labour and the Liberal Democrats

Google News Labs team worked with University of Sheffield lecturer Dr Alasdair Rae to create the election maps
They looked at Google search data over the past 12 months to track which party leaders were searched for the most
Google's Knowledge graph technology was then used to aggregated this across 5,000 towns and cities in the UK 
Researchers then converted this into the number of seats the parties could win in the General Election - with Conservatives on 237, UKIP on 221 and Labour in third place with 125
By Victoria Woollaston for MailOnline

Published: 09:33, 7 May 2015 | Updated: 14:06, 7 May 2015

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3070470/Google-Search-tips-Cameron-win-election-Nigel-Farage-s-Ukip-beat-Labour-Liberal-Democrats.html#ixzz3ZTheQfUW 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> 3


Lol at the Leftie Extremist / Eco Warrior. I didn't get the '3' though; some deep hidden meaning?


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> Define social justice.. normally that's take what others earn.


Seriously? How about a society that is fair for all, that doesn't leave anyone behind? Gives a helping hand to people like this!






A society that is there for everyone regardless of how much money they've got. A society like the one Nye Bevan created, that is now being destroyed!

Nye Bevan was a visionary; idealist; champion of social justice. He saw a future that provided free medical care to everyone at their point of need - and he had the drive and courage to make it a reality with the creation of the NHS in 1948. The son of a coal miner, he rose through the ranks of the Labour Party to become Health Minister in post-war Britain - a time he saw as a chance to build a 'new society' that would care for its most vulnerable people.

Using his passion and influence, he fought opponents on all sides to bring his vision to life. His dedication to social equality left a lasting legacy for our nation that is - to this day - the world's largest and most sophisticated national healthcare system.



Spellweaver said:


> He certainly is - and I'm glad to say I voted for him today





Satori said:


> Just started it.





Spellweaver said:


> I don't agree with you in the least - but this country could do a lot worse than follow the economic example set by Germany.
> 
> And how much of that saving of £10 billion will be swallowed up in the costs of administrating the system?
> 
> Still, it provides another opportunity for the next Tory government to move money from the poor to the rich - they could take away the means testing, sack all the administrators, say everyone has to pay the full £100,and then give millionaires another tax cut with the money instead.





Spellweaver said:


> He certainly is - and I'm glad to say I voted for him today


I love him!  He reminds me of my lovely Grandad, calls a spade a spade with a witty sense of humour lol Ive just got back voting for candidate, another ex miner as it happens, not one of these 'careers politicians'. Hes been brilliant over the badger cull, i couldn't have asked any more from him on that.



Satori said:


> Just started it.


Nice one


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> Lol at the Leftie Extremist / Eco Warrior. I didn't get the '3' though; some deep hidden meaning?


The meaning is so hidden i don't even know what it means myself


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> Seriously? How about a society that is fair for all, that doesn't leave anyone behind?


Which would work if everyone was prepared to actually do the same amount of work. Should teachers/doctors etc not be paid more than someone with no responsibilities? Why bother working and contributing to society when you are simply given it regardless? Hate to break it to you but most people realize a society where people all work for the common good doesn't, has never and will never exist. Even communist states had/have their haves and have nots.


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> A society that is there for everyone regardless of how much money they've got. A society like the one Nye Bevan created, that is now being destroyed!


You support a labour party which allowed the NHS to be riddled with extortionate debt from decades of misguided PFI deals. NHS hospitals owe £80bn in PFI loan unitary charges - in other words, the ongoing costs of maintaining PFI hospitals and paying back the loans. In 2015, trusts will make some £2bn in repayments. Trusts like Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust, which is locked into making £40m in repayments a year on the PFI it took for Peterborough City Hospital, or Sherwood Forest NHS Trust, which is spending 15 per cent of its annual budget on the annual repayments on a PFI loan it took to expand the King's Mill Hospital, and so on.


----------



## Colliebarmy

Goblin said:


> You support a labour party which allowed the NHS to be riddled with extortionate debt from decades of misguided PFI deals. NHS hospitals owe £80bn in PFI loan unitary charges - in other words, the ongoing costs of maintaining PFI hospitals and paying back the loans. In 2015, trusts will make some £2bn in repayments. Trusts like Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust, which is locked into making £40m in repayments a year on the PFI it took for Peterborough City Hospital, or Sherwood Forest NHS Trust, which is spending 15 per cent of its annual budget on the annual repayments on a PFI loan it took to expand the King's Mill Hospital, and so on.


Dont start telling truths now, the myths are much more fun


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> You support a labour party which allowed the NHS to be riddled with extortionate debt from decades of misguided PFI deals. NHS hospitals owe £80bn in PFI loan unitary charges - in other words, the ongoing costs of maintaining PFI hospitals and paying back the loans. In 2015, trusts will make some £2bn in repayments. Trusts like Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust, which is locked into making £40m in repayments a year on the PFI it took for Peterborough City Hospital, or Sherwood Forest NHS Trust, which is spending 15 per cent of its annual budget on the annual repayments on a PFI loan it took to expand the King's Mill Hospital, and so on.


No I support a labour party that, despite all its wrong doings, is the ONLY hope of saving our NHS. Please check out what those who know all the facts are saying. They make no excuse for labour.


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> You need to look at the big picture Satori, they no longer have to provide any care.


You can't see the smoke on the video but her pants are on fire. (The emboldening is mine).

From the Health and Social Services Act 2012.........

*13Duties of clinical commissioning groups as to commissioning certain health services*
(1)Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (1)-

(a)for the words from the beginning to "reasonable requirements" substitute "A clinical commissioning group must arrange for the provision of the following to such extent as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the persons for whom it has responsibility", and

(b)in each of paragraphs (d) and (e) for the words "as he considers" substitute "as the group considers".

(3)After that subsection insert-

"(1A)For the purposes of this section, a clinical commissioning group has responsibility for-

(a)persons who are provided with primary medical services by a member of the group, and

*(b)persons who usually reside in the group's area and are not provided with primary medical services by a member of any clinical commissioning group.*

(1B)Regulations may provide that for the purposes of this section a clinical commissioning group also has responsibility (whether generally or in relation to a prescribed service or facility) for persons who-

(a)were provided with primary medical services by a person who is or was a member of the group, or

(b)have a prescribed connection with the group's area.

(1C)The power conferred by subsection (1B)(b) must be exercised so as to provide that, in relation to the provision of services or facilities for emergency care, a clinical commissioning group has responsibility for every person present in its area.

(1D)Regulations may provide that subsection (1A) does not apply-

(a)in relation to persons of a prescribed description (which may include a description framed by reference to the primary medical services with which the persons are provided);

(b)in prescribed circumstances.

(1E)The duty in subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a service or facility if the Board has a duty to arrange for its provision."

(4)After subsection (1E) insert-

"(1F)In exercising its functions under this section and section 3A, a clinical commissioning group must act consistently with-

(a)the discharge by the Secretary of State and the Board of their duty under section 1(1) (duty to promote a comprehensive health service), and

(b)the objectives and requirements for the time being specified in the mandate published under section 13A."

(5)Omit subsections (2) and (3).

(6)For the heading to section 3 substitute "Duties of clinical commissioning groups as to commissioning certain health services".

(7)For the cross-heading preceding section 3 substitute "Arrangements for the provision of certain health services".

(8)In section 272 of that Act (orders, regulations, rules and directions), in subsection (6) before paragraph (za) insert-

"(zza)regulations under section 3(1D),".


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> You can't see the smoke on the video but her pants are on fire. (The emboldening is mine).
> 
> From the Health and Social Services Act 2012.........
> 
> *13Duties of clinical commissioning groups as to commissioning certain health services*
> (1)Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
> 
> (2)In subsection (1)-
> 
> (a)for the words from the beginning to "reasonable requirements" substitute "A clinical commissioning group must arrange for the provision of the following to such extent as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the persons for whom it has responsibility", and
> 
> (b)in each of paragraphs (d) and (e) for the words "as he considers" substitute "as the group considers".
> 
> (3)After that subsection insert-
> 
> "(1A)For the purposes of this section, a clinical commissioning group has responsibility for-
> 
> (a)persons who are provided with primary medical services by a member of the group, and
> 
> *(b)persons who usually reside in the group's area and are not provided with primary medical services by a member of any clinical commissioning group.*
> 
> (1B)Regulations may provide that for the purposes of this section a clinical commissioning group also has responsibility (whether generally or in relation to a prescribed service or facility) for persons who-
> 
> (a)were provided with primary medical services by a person who is or was a member of the group, or
> 
> (b)have a prescribed connection with the group's area.
> 
> (1C)The power conferred by subsection (1B)(b) must be exercised so as to provide that, in relation to the provision of services or facilities for emergency care, a clinical commissioning group has responsibility for every person present in its area.
> 
> (1D)Regulations may provide that subsection (1A) does not apply-
> 
> (a)in relation to persons of a prescribed description (which may include a description framed by reference to the primary medical services with which the persons are provided);
> 
> (b)in prescribed circumstances.
> 
> (1E)The duty in subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a service or facility if the Board has a duty to arrange for its provision."
> 
> (4)After subsection (1E) insert-
> 
> "(1F)In exercising its functions under this section and section 3A, a clinical commissioning group must act consistently with-
> 
> (a)the discharge by the Secretary of State and the Board of their duty under section 1(1) (duty to promote a comprehensive health service), and
> 
> (b)the objectives and requirements for the time being specified in the mandate published under section 13A."
> 
> (5)Omit subsections (2) and (3).
> 
> (6)For the heading to section 3 substitute "Duties of clinical commissioning groups as to commissioning certain health services".
> 
> (7)For the cross-heading preceding section 3 substitute "Arrangements for the provision of certain health services".
> 
> (8)In section 272 of that Act (orders, regulations, rules and directions), in subsection (6) before paragraph (za) insert-
> 
> "(zza)regulations under section 3(1D),".


Are you saying Allyson Pollock is lying? What possible motive would she have to do that? Surely you don't think these 140 doctors are also lying?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...0-top-doctors-attack-government-record-on-nhs


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> Are you saying Allyson Pollock is lying? What possible motive would she have to do that? Surely you don't think these 140 doctors are also lying?
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...0-top-doctors-attack-government-record-on-nhs


Yes I am. I believe she is lying as regards the responsibilities of the CCGs and lying about the administrative cost estimates (see video at 11 minutes). No credible source has ever come up with 30%, it is sheer fantasy.

Motive? Easy. To further her political agenda, relying on the fact that the gullible will watch her video without doing any fact checking.


----------



## Jonescat

Ang2 said:


> Oh dear!
> 
> Google Search tips Cameron to win election - and Nigel Farage's Ukip will beat Labour and the Liberal Democrats
> 
> Google News Labs team worked with University of Sheffield lecturer Dr Alasdair Rae to create the election maps
> They looked at Google search data over the past 12 months to track which party leaders were searched for the most
> Google's Knowledge graph technology was then used to aggregated this across 5,000 towns and cities in the UK
> Researchers then converted this into the number of seats the parties could win in the General Election - with Conservatives on 237, UKIP on 221 and Labour in third place with 125
> By Victoria Woollaston for MailOnline
> 
> Published: 09:33, 7 May 2015 | Updated: 14:06, 7 May 2015
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3070470/Google-Search-tips-Cameron-win-election-Nigel-Farage-s-Ukip-beat-Labour-Liberal-Democrats.html#ixzz3ZTheQfUW
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


False correlation surely? I have searched for every single party leader including Zebadiah Abu-Obadiah of the Al-Zebabist Natin of Ooog but so far have not found a way to vote for more than one of them, and apparently I can only votes for the parties standing in my area. It is most unfair, and will skew the nice researchers results terribly.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> As long as it doesn't penalize the really sick


They'll be fine providing they can pay ...



Goblin said:


> Which would work if everyone was prepared to actually do the same amount of work. Should teachers/doctors etc not be paid more than someone with no responsibilities? Why bother working and contributing to society when you are simply given it regardless? Hate to break it to you but most people realize a society where people all work for the common good doesn't, has never and will never exist. Even communist states had/have their haves and have nots.


Ehh? Public sector workers aren't suffering under this unfair austerity policy? What do you think all those mass protests have been about? (that the media failed to report). Compared to what we have now, we use to have a pretty fair & decent society - and it wasn't a communist state lol

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/celebrate-strikers-media-opposed-trade-unions





Its clear you don't believe in a welfare state or free health care for all so we might as well just agree to disagree.


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> Yes I am. I believe she is lying as regards the responsibilities of the CCGs and lying about the administrative cost estimates (see video at 11 minutes). No credible source has ever come up with 30%, it is sheer fantasy.
> 
> Motive? Easy. To further her political agenda, relying on the fact that the gullible will watch her video without doing any fact checking.


She has a political agenda? :/ What about all the doctors on that link, do you think they have a political agenda as well?


----------



## Ang2

Well, I certainly believe in free health care for all! Just NOT all the World!


----------



## Bisbow

Well, thats it, all over bar the shouting. Now the recriminations start


----------



## Lunabuma

I voted and for the first time it was a tactical vote. My labour vote is dead in the water in my area so voted to try to block the Tory bloke.


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> Its clear you don't believe in a welfare state or free health care for all so we might as well just agree to disagree.


Oh wait.. I don't agree labour is best, therefore I do not believe in free health care or a welfare state. Why could that be? Could it be because I've never been one to believe that money grows on trees. I've also seen how private insurance, based on how much you earn and health care can work without anyone being excluded and not providing a "tiered system".

I believe in a *welfare state which targets those who need it*. I believe in healthcare for all, where necessary making those who can afford it pay more. I believe people should actually expect to be able to earn money and do better for themselves and their families by working hard, not working hard and be penalized for it. I don't believe people should simply get money for nothing when they could be contributing to society *when they are able to*.

Do I believe Labour can deliver that.. not from past experience. Labour is the "only hope" yet you ignore every problem labour has caused within the NHS. The bill Allyson Pollock has her name on wasn't created or pushed through by labour. It was the Green MP and a liberal democrat, gaining cross party support from both labour and the conservatives.

Do I believe the Tories are perfect.. not by a long shot. I will not recommend or push them. However I will argue against a party which is likely to destroy the economy in the long term, cause a potential split between scotland and the rest of the UK and push the economy backwards.


----------



## jaycee05

Cant believe anyone would want another 5 years of Cameron, unless they are well off, no illness or disabilities, private healthcare etc
My daughtrs partner disgusted me today,he voted for UKIP ,he said he didnt care about the NHS he can pay, 
My daughter has Crohns and couldnt afford to pay,


----------



## Ang2

For goodness sake! Nigel Farage has said over and over that he believes in the NHS and the party has pledged an extra £3 BILLION.


----------



## Kittenfostermummy

Well if the exit poll is correct then it will be another Tory government and I will no doubt have to move out of my home due to the bedroom tax! I am totally dreading what this means for me finacially and physically!


----------



## Ang2

UKIP would scrap the bedroom tax!


----------



## stuaz

I didn't vote, mainly because I live in the only area in the UK (that's am aware of) that can only vote for UKIP or other small minority parties. Labour, conservatives and lib dem do not stand in my area. The MP we have is the speaker of the commons who can't vote on laws in parliament anyway, so it's pointless voting in this instance. 

Never used to think there was such a thing as a wasted vote.....


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> Oh wait.. I don't agree labour is best, therefore I do not believe in free health care or a welfare state. Why could that be? Could it be because I've never been one to believe that money grows on trees. I've also seen how private insurance, based on how much you earn and health care can work without anyone being excluded and not providing a "tiered system".
> 
> I believe in a *welfare state which targets those who need it*. I believe in healthcare for all, where necessary making those who can afford it pay more. I believe people should actually expect to be able to earn money and do better for themselves and their families by working hard, not working hard and be penalized for it. I don't believe people should simply get money for nothing when they could be contributing to society *when they are able to*.
> 
> Do I believe Labour can deliver that.. not from past experience. Labour is the "only hope" yet you ignore every problem labour has caused within the NHS. The bill Allyson Pollock has her name on wasn't created or pushed through by labour. It was the Green MP and a liberal democrat, gaining cross party support from both labour and the conservatives.
> 
> Do I believe the Tories are perfect.. not by a long shot. I will not recommend or push them. However I will argue against a party which is likely to destroy the economy in the long term, cause a potential split between scotland and the rest of the UK and push the economy backwards.


The tories are 'dismantling' the welfare state - why do you think so many people have died? The NHS privatisation has been modelled on the American system - TTIP will now seal our NHS's fate - TTIP will likely seal the fate of your health service too.

I have never ignored anything labour have done, but even you surely cant deny things are a million times worse under the tories? just look at NHS performance now! I know all about the bill, but the Greens know the only hope of saving the NHS was a labour govt. Anyway its not going to happen, the tories will get back in and finish the job. And i'll get no satisfaction saying 'I told you so', but at least i'll be able to look my children in the eye & know I did all I could to save it - & our wildlife. The tories have destroyed the economy, our deficit is now bigger than Greeces even though they've slashed the welfare budget & sold off our public assets. As for Scotland splitting, I think another tory government will see to that! Good luck to the Scottish people, I wish the North could join them.


----------



## Ang2

Labour win Sunderland South. UKIP second!



ETA UKIP take 21% of votes in an area they were not predicted to do well!


----------



## CRL

Ang2 said:


> For goodness sake! Nigel Farage has said over and over that he believes in the NHS and the party has pledged an extra £3 BILLION.





Ang2 said:


> UKIP would scrap the bedroom tax!


he could be giving away a brand new car to every person who votes for him and i still wouldnt do it.


----------



## noushka05

Kittenfostermummy said:


> Well if the exit poll is correct then it will be another Tory government and I will no doubt have to move out of my home due to the bedroom tax! I am totally dreading what this means for me finacially and physically!


Don't know what to say, I feel awful you've got this worry xx


----------



## poohdog

_*You know the results now!….More of the same old same old lies,deceit,'Yes Minister' gobbledegook, that you've been fed for years by this bunch of self interested, greedy members of the old boys network….no matter which mob gets into power.*_


----------



## Spellweaver

Kittenfostermummy said:


> Well if the exit poll is correct then it will be another Tory government and I will no doubt have to move out of my home due to the bedroom tax! I am totally dreading what this means for me finacially and physically!


Let's just hope the exit poll is wrong. (((((hugs)))))

This is what people who support Tories ought to be made to reslise - the effect their actions are going to have on poeple who are not as lucky to be as rich as them. I'd say I hope all the Tory voters can live with themselves afterwards, but it's my guess that anyone who has voted Tory has already shown that all they think about is themselves geting richer, and couldn't care less how it will affect the most vulnerable people in our society.


----------



## noushka05

poohdog said:


> _*You know the results now!….More of the same old same old lies,deceit,'Yes Minister' gobbledegook, that you've been fed for years by this bunch of self interested, greedy members of the old boys network….no matter which mob gets into power.*_


But some are a bit worse than others. I think David Schneider summed it up well.

*David SchneiderVerified account*‏@*davidschneider*
Not yet voted? Here's a last plea:
Labour may not be perfect but the Tories are worse. In that gap 1000s of lives can be improved. Pls vote.


----------



## Satori

jaycee05 said:


> Cant believe anyone would want another 5 years of Cameron, unless they are well off......


It isn't just people who are well off who vote Tory but also people who plan to be; people who plan to get off their @rses and make something of their lives and who can see that a party that supports endeavour will be more likely to facilitate their ambitions. The people who will pay the lions share of the taxes that support the labour voters in other words.


----------



## Ang2

When voting for Con/Lab, remember that the bedroom tax revenue is needed to send £Billions to India, to support *their* citizens, whilst their own government spends* their *money on a space programme!

*The government is expected to freeze the level of assistance given to India at £295m ($480m) a year. But why does a nuclear power with its own space programme need British aid?

In a widely-signalled move, it is anticipated that International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell will announce the amount of aid given to India will be maintained at 2009/10 levels.

But the decision has attracted criticism from newspapers and politicians who say the UK taxpayer does not need to donate to a state that is itself a foreign aid donor, which is classified by the World Bank as a middle income country (MIC) and whose economy is growing at nearly 10% a year.*
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537*


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> I have never ignored anything labour have done, but even you surely cant deny things are a million times worse under the tories? just look at NHS performance now!


What the difference between labour run Wales and Conservative run England? Let's not ignore the fact of the debts incurred under previous Labour government and it's ongoing negative effect. In real terms, public spending for the NHS has increased. Now changes in management etc, that's a different story with both labour and conservative totally messing things up, just as they do with education.



> The tories have destroyed the economy, our deficit is now bigger than Greeces even though they've slashed the welfare budget & sold off our public assets.


Yet Germany, which has the strongest economy in the EU have stated that the UK is going in the right direction and forecasts are good.

I keep hearing about the idea of taxing the rich instead of hitting simply the poor. Maybe you should investigate the Laffer Curve. in 2010 Gordon Brown raised the tax rate to 50%. What was the result? Two thirds of millionaires left. Result, tax income reduced by 7 billion, not increased and potentially discouraged entrepreneurs from coming into the UK. George Osbourne has raised stamp duty for houses worth over 2 million penalising the rich. In 2009/10 Gordon Brown set the highest tax level to £37,400. George Osborne reduced this to £31,865 again hitting the rich. Personal allowances have been raised from 6,475 in 2009/10 to £10,000 now which provides relief for poor tax payers but with no benefit for the rich as they do not receive the allowance. A tax loophole: overseas investors avoid capital gains tax, this applied to UK expats selling property while based overseas. This has been closed by the Tories. Tax relief for things like charity giving, business "losses" and mortgage offsets were used massively to create loopholes. Osborne has limited these to 25 percent of their income or £50,000 - whichever is greater. These are all massive soaks on the rich and something that Gordon Brown could have done, but didn't. So it's not simply ignore the rich and take from the poor.

http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/small-is-best/ is also an interesting study. By freezing things like VAT, income tax and national insurance the primary money saving possibility is to reduce the size of the state. It's been proven, a smaller state performs better economically. This is the total opposite to labour which will enlarge the state.

So where will all the money labour has promised to spend come from?



> As for Scotland splitting, I think another tory government will see to that! Good luck to the Scottish people, I wish the North could join them.


If they do split at least it will be with consideration for English needs and requirements, not terms dictated by Scotland.

As you like memes..



















Let's not forget the hated Maggie:










That's the main difference between us.. I want a high level of living for all even if that means there is a gap. Labour will make everyone poorer.


----------



## Goblin

Ang2 said:


> When voting for Con/Lab, remember that the bedroom tax revenue is needed to send £Billions to India, to support *their* citizens, whilst their own government spends* their *money on a space programme!


I don't think it's that simple and I feel it's a smokescreen not for aid but influence in the area. I wonder how much of the money actually reaches their citizens. Personally I doubt much of it. So as far as I am concerned, the question isn't about aid, it's do we need to maintain influence around the world and to be a foreign power or is this simply tradition due to the old empire days? Can we rely on our allies (states for example) to maintain our interests? I'd love to say no in a lot of ways but I don't know the pros and cons.


----------



## rona

Sense has prevailed


----------



## astro2011

Blooming SNP!


----------



## Spellweaver

Goodbye anyone who will need benefits during this next five years - I don't see how you will manage to continue to exist with a government that no longer cares for you and my heart goes out to you. Goodbye NHS - I've enjoyed working for you for the past 40 years, but I doubt that you will survive the next five - to all the people I've worked with who will end up jobless, and to anyone who will need treatment and can't pay for it, my heart goes out to you. Goodbye all you foxes who will shortly be ripped to shreds by packs of hounds - my heart bleeds for you. Goodbye you beautiful badgers - my heart bleeds for you too. Goodbye England as your green and pleasant lands are torn apart by frackers - words can't express how my heart aches at the thought.

And to all who voted conservative - I don't know how you can live with yourselves. I hope your personal wealth, at the expense of all the above, turns out to be worth it for you.


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> It isn't just people who are well off who vote Tory but also people who plan to be; people who plan to get off their @rses and make something of their lives and who can see that a party that supports endeavour will be more likely to facilitate their ambitions. The people who will pay the lions share of the taxes that support the labour voters in other words.


What about all the public sector workers,the firemen, nurses, etc arent they getting off their arses? People in industry, like my hubby, grafting in sometimes horrible & dangerous conditions? (hes just been seriously burned in an industrial accident) People in the care sector, people in shops, construction. Dont they deserve a fair days pay?, because most aren't getting one. Most people in poverty are in work, most people needing benefits are in work (not us i might add, we are lucky, we've just paid off our mortgage & we can get by) And actually, the top 10% pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax than the bottom 10% do.



Goblin said:


> What the difference between labour run Wales and Conservative run England? Let's not ignore the fact of the debts incurred under previous Labour government and it's ongoing negative effect. In real terms, public spending for the NHS has increased. Now changes in management etc, that's a different story with both labour and conservative totally messing things up, just as they do with education.
> 
> Yet Germany, which has the strongest economy in the EU have stated that the UK is going in the right direction and forecasts are good.
> 
> I keep hearing about the idea of taxing the rich instead of hitting simply the poor. Maybe you should investigate the Laffer Curve. in 2010 Gordon Brown raised the tax rate to 50%. What was the result? Two thirds of millionaires left. Result, tax income reduced by 7 billion, not increased and potentially discouraged entrepreneurs from coming into the UK. George Osbourne has raised stamp duty for houses worth over 2 million penalising the rich. In 2009/10 Gordon Brown set the highest tax level to £37,400. George Osborne reduced this to £31,865 again hitting the rich. Personal allowances have been raised from 6,475 in 2009/10 to £10,000 now which provides relief for poor tax payers but with no benefit for the rich as they do not receive the allowance. A tax loophole: overseas investors avoid capital gains tax, this applied to UK expats selling property while based overseas. This has been closed by the Tories. Tax relief for things like charity giving, business "losses" and mortgage offsets were used massively to create loopholes. Osborne has limited these to 25 percent of their income or £50,000 - whichever is greater. These are all massive soaks on the rich and something that Gordon Brown could have done, but didn't. So it's not simply ignore the rich and take from the poor.
> 
> http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/small-is-best/ is also an interesting study. By freezing things like VAT, income tax and national insurance the primary money saving possibility is to reduce the size of the state. It's been proven, a smaller state performs better economically. This is the total opposite to labour which will enlarge the state.
> 
> So where will all the money labour has promised to spend come from?
> 
> If they do split at least it will be with consideration for English needs and requirements, not terms dictated by Scotland.
> 
> As you like memes..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget the hated Maggie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the main difference between us.. I want a high level of living for all even if that means there is a gap. Labour will make everyone poorer.


Walter E Williams - ahh the words of an Atlas Shrugger lol I always knew you were a believer in laissez-faire capitalism & now you've proved it conclusively

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/immoral-beyond-redemption.html
_
Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Are today's Americans virtuous and moral, or have we become corrupt and vicious? Let's think it through with a few questions.

Suppose I saw an elderly woman painfully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. She's hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman. Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer in the affirmative. I've committed theft by taking the property of one person to give to another.

Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money. Now comes the hard part. Would it still be theft if I were able to get three people to agree that I should take your money? What if I got 100 people to agree - 100,000 or 200 million people? What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that's clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Put another way, does legality establish morality? Before you answer, keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi's Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal. Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people.

The moral question is whether it's right to take what belongs to one person to give to another to whom it does not belong._

_Don't get me wrong. I personally believe that assisting one's fellow man in need by reaching into one's own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Doing the same by reaching into another's pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation. Some people call governmental handouts charity, but charity and legalized theft are entirely two different things. But as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress.

Our current economic crisis, as well as that of Europe, is a direct result of immoral conduct. Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of our federal budget can be described as Congress' taking the property of one American and giving it to another. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly half of federal spending. Then there are corporate welfare and farm subsidies and thousands of other spending programs, such as food stamps, welfare and education. According to a 2009 Census Bureau report, nearly 139 million Americans - 46 percent - receive handouts from one or more federal programs, and nearly 50 percent have no federal income tax obligations.

In the face of our looming financial calamity, what are we debating about? It's not about the reduction or elimination of the immoral conduct that's delivered us to where we are. It's about how we pay for it - namely, taxing the rich, not realizing that even if Congress imposed a 100 percent tax on earnings higher than $250,000 per year, it would keep the government running for only 141 days.

Ayn Rand, in her novel "Atlas Shrugged," reminded us that "when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good."

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com._

And fyi, Thatcher's trickle down economy is a proven lie, open your eyes, wealth hasnt 'trickled down' inequality is out of control as the wealth trickles UP - and the greedy, selfish Thatcherism(neoliberalism) ideology is the reason our planet is being plundered and destroyed. Great.

.


----------



## shetlandlover

I'm shocked that UKIP haven't got more seats (thank god!) but...they've done well in the polls...I think they are a real risk next time around.


----------



## JANICE199

*God help the people in this country. Many are going to suffer for yet another 5 years. I for one feel so sad to think people would still vote for such an evil party.:Rage*


----------



## noushka05

Spellweaver said:


> Goodbye anyone who will need benefits during this next five years - I don't see how you will manage to continue to exist with a government that no longer cares for you and my heart goes out to you. Goodbye NHS - I've enjoyed working for you for the past 40 years, but I doubt that you will survive the next five - to all the people I've worked with who will end up jobless, and to anyone who will need treatment and can't pay for it, my heart goes out to you. Goodbye all you foxes who will shortly be ripped to shreds by packs of hounds - my heart bleeds for you. Goodbye you beautiful badgers - my heart bleeds for you too. Goodbye England as your green and pleasant lands are torn apart by frackers - words can't express how my heart aches at the thought.
> 
> And to all who voted conservative - I don't know how you can live with yourselves. I hope your personal wealth, at the expense of all the above, turns out to be worth it for you.


I feel just the same Val, gutted. Gutted for all the death & destruction that will now definitely unfold.


----------



## shetlandlover

I know emotions are quite high but I don't think it's fair for posts attacking people for voting for who they've voted for.

Voting is a right held by all and people should be able to vote and voice their vote without feeling attacked or insulted.


----------



## Spellweaver

JANICE199 said:


> *God help the people in this country. Many are going to suffer for yet another 5 years. I for one feel so sad to think people would still vote for such an evil party.:Rage*


It's a sad world where people are more interested in accumulating their personal wealth than thinking about their fellow human beings and the animals who share the planet with them.


----------



## JANICE199

shetlandlover said:


> I know emotions are quite high but I don't think it's fair for posts attacking people for voting for who they've voted for.
> 
> Voting is a right held by all and people should be able to vote and voice their vote without feeling attacked or insulted.


*I am just voicing my opinion. Which i think i still have the right to do. I'm sure i'm not the only one thinking this way.*


----------



## Spellweaver

shetlandlover said:


> I know emotions are quite high but I don't think it's fair for posts attacking people for voting for who they've voted for.
> 
> Voting is a right held by all and people should be able to vote and voice their vote without feeling attacked or insulted.


All the posts on threads about elections are about who people are going to vote for/who they have voted for. All who have posted have had their choices questioned by people who did not agree with their voting stance, no matter who their party of choice. That's what debating is about. It's not an attack on anyone - it's merely someone expressing their opposite opinion. If anyone did not want their choice discussed, why post in the first place?


----------



## shetlandlover

JANICE199 said:


> *I am just voicing my opinion. Which i think i still have the right to do. I'm sure i'm not the only one thinking this way.*


Wasn't just aimed at your comment but there's a difference between voicing an opinion and attacking.

There are many reasons people vote for the parties they do, it doesn't make them bad people voting a party you don't agree with and they shouldn't feel as such.


----------



## shetlandlover

Spellweaver said:


> If anyone did not want their choice discussed, why post in the first place?


There's a massive difference between discussing and attacking....


----------



## noushka05

Spellweaver said:


> It's a sad world where people are more interested in accumulating their personal wealth than thinking about their fellow human beings and the animals who share the planet with them.


I think David Schneider hits the nail on the head again -

*David Schneider @davidschneider · 9h9 hours ago
"Compassion! Empathy! Caring for the less fortunate! You took one helluva beating!" #GE2015*

Well its 30 billion more cuts to the welfare budget to come, I wonder how many people who voted for them will live to regret it ?


----------



## Hanwombat

I voted tories - so shoot me then!


----------



## Nicky10

I am shocked, utterly shocked, that Sinn Fein has held onto their seat here really. You think you have issues my local MP is yet again a member of a terrorist organisation who refuses to sit in parliament


----------



## JANICE199

Hanwombat said:


> I voted tories - so shoot me then!


*Nope not going to shoot anyone. It's your right to vote for who you like. It's also my right to say how i feel.*


----------



## Hanwombat

JANICE199 said:


> *Nope not going to shoot anyone. It's your right to vote for who you like. It's also my right to say how i feel.*


Phew!! I was getting ready to run around dodging bullets


----------



## shetlandlover

Hanwombat said:


> I voted tories - so shoot me then!


Oh another blue voter. *waves*


----------



## Spellweaver

shetlandlover said:


> Wasn't just aimed at your comment but there's a difference between voicing an opinion and attacking.
> 
> There are many reasons people vote for the parties they do, it doesn't make them bad people voting a party you don't agree with and they shouldn't feel as such.





shetlandlover said:


> There's a massive difference between discussing and attacking....


Sorry if you feel you've been attacked personally. It was not my intention to do this - you know me better than that. If I had a personal beef with you, I'd be saying it straight out.

We could all take things on this thread personally - for example, Satori's comment that Labour supporters don't work hard and expect to be supported by Tory voters. As a very hard working Labour voter who has thankfully never yet been unemployed and so has never needed benefits, I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over her/his remarks - they're what he/she believes and he/she is perfectly entitled to state what she believes no matter how much I disagree with it and think he/she is wrong. However, by the same token I'm entitled to express my beliefs - and my beliefs just happen to be that Tory voters have landed the most vulnerable members of our society in the deepest s**t imagineable, and that they have given those who enjoy blood sports carte blanche to race around the country killing animals, and that I am deeply unhappy about that. Don't you think I should be entitled to express that?


----------



## JANICE199

*I do wonder, how many that said they were going to vote UKIP, actually voted Tory.*


----------



## shetlandlover

Spellweaver said:


> Sorry if you feel you've been attacked personally. It was not my intention to do this - you know me better than that. If I had a personal beef with you, I'd be saying it straight out.


I know hun and you know I love you loads.

The thing is people who've voted for tories are people too, they've done what they think is right....if it is or not is another matter.

I'm not rich nor am I in good health but I picked Tories because I feel that's what's right at this moment in time. That's just my opinion, last time I voted Labour and I like Ed way more than David. I'm no way some rich stuck up animal hunter.... I just voted based on what I felt.


----------



## JANICE199

shetlandlover said:


> I know hun and you know I love you loads.
> 
> The thing is people who've voted for tories are people too, they've done what they think is right....if it is or not is another matter.
> 
> I'm not rich nor am I in good health but I picked Tories because I feel that's what's right at this moment in time. That's just my opinion, last time I voted Labour and I like Ed way more than David. I'm no way some rich stuck up animal hunter.... I just voted based on what I felt.


*It's ok, we all make mistakes........ joke.*


----------



## Spellweaver

shetlandlover said:


> I know hun and you know I love you loads.
> 
> The thing is people who've voted for tories are people too, they've done what they think is right....if it is or not is another matter.
> 
> I'm not rich nor am I in good health but I picked Tories because I feel that's what's right at this moment in time. That's just my opinion, last time I voted Labour and I like Ed way more than David. I'm no way some rich stuck up animal hunter.... I just voted based on what I felt.


Love you back loads - and I understand why you voted Tory cos you explained it on here. Still can't help thinking that you're not typical of Tory voters though


----------



## shetlandlover

Spellweaver said:


> Love you back loads - and I understand why you voted Tory cos you explained it on here. Still can't help thinking that you're not typical of Tory voters though


I think a lot of people voted based on "better the devil you know"....many didn't want a UKIP win and voted for who they thought would be a likely competition.

I don't know how the country will be in 5 years but let's hope the UKIP 2020 plan doesn't work.


----------



## Pointermum

Goblin said:


> What the difference between labour run Wales and Conservative run England? Let's not ignore the fact of the debts incurred under previous Labour government and it's ongoing negative effect. In real terms, public spending for the NHS has increased. Now changes in management etc, that's a different story with both labour and conservative totally messing things up, just as they do with education.
> 
> Yet Germany, which has the strongest economy in the EU have stated that the UK is going in the right direction and forecasts are good.
> 
> I keep hearing about the idea of taxing the rich instead of hitting simply the poor. Maybe you should investigate the Laffer Curve. in 2010 Gordon Brown raised the tax rate to 50%. What was the result? Two thirds of millionaires left. Result, tax income reduced by 7 billion, not increased and potentially discouraged entrepreneurs from coming into the UK. George Osbourne has raised stamp duty for houses worth over 2 million penalising the rich. In 2009/10 Gordon Brown set the highest tax level to £37,400. George Osborne reduced this to £31,865 again hitting the rich. Personal allowances have been raised from 6,475 in 2009/10 to £10,000 now which provides relief for poor tax payers but with no benefit for the rich as they do not receive the allowance. A tax loophole: overseas investors avoid capital gains tax, this applied to UK expats selling property while based overseas. This has been closed by the Tories. Tax relief for things like charity giving, business "losses" and mortgage offsets were used massively to create loopholes. Osborne has limited these to 25 percent of their income or £50,000 - whichever is greater. These are all massive soaks on the rich and something that Gordon Brown could have done, but didn't. So it's not simply ignore the rich and take from the poor.
> 
> http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/small-is-best/ is also an interesting study. By freezing things like VAT, income tax and national insurance the primary money saving possibility is to reduce the size of the state. It's been proven, a smaller state performs better economically. This is the total opposite to labour which will enlarge the state.
> 
> So where will all the money labour has promised to spend come from?
> 
> If they do split at least it will be with consideration for English needs and requirements, not terms dictated by Scotland.
> 
> That's the main difference between us.. I want a high level of living for all even if that means there is a gap. Labour will make everyone poorer.


Add to that they stopped child benefit for the "rich" .

Being considered as the "upper/middle class" we have lost money under conservative, yet I know it's for the greater good of getting the country out of such huge debt so know it was the right thing to do.

I've also been the other end of the scale stuck in a one bed flat as a family unable to get a council place because people live in places too big for their needs, I don't agree with how they went about the bedroom tax but in principle it's a good idea (providing they helped and provided enough accommodation for those who wished to downsize) . My sister is just looking into a house swap where a women has a 3 bed house with just her and her daughter , where as my sister has a 2 bed with a 11yr old girl and 2 yr old boy and her partner they would be stuck like that forever if the bedroom tax not been brought in. If my husband lost his job or became ill we would have to sell up and downsize, our house isn't guaranteed for life I don't see why council tenants should expect it.


----------



## Satori

JANICE199 said:


> *I do wonder, how many that said they were going to vote UKIP, actually voted Tory.*


Not so many _afaict_. It looks like a lot of people who were polling to vote LibDem changed horses and voted Tory.


----------



## Hanwombat

When I voted for Tories - I wasn't voting for fox hunting etc, I voted for them because alot of my views seemed to be similar to theirs, not all of them and I wouldn't have wanted to vote for another party just for the hell of it.


----------



## JANICE199

Pointermum said:


> Add to that they stopped child benefit for the "rich" .
> 
> Being considered as the "upper/middle class" we have lost money under conservative, yet I know it's for the greater good of getting the country out of such huge debt so know it was the right thing to do.
> 
> I've also been the other end of the scale stuck in a one bed flat as a family unable to get a council place because people live in places too big for their needs, I don't agree with how they went about the bedroom tax but in principle it's a good idea (providing they helped and provided enough accommodation for those who wished to downsize) . My sister is just looking into a house swap where a women has a 3 bed house with just her and her daughter , where as my sister has a 2 bed with a 11yr old girl and 2 yr old boy and her partner they would be stuck like that forever if the bedroom tax not been brought in. If my husband lost his job or became ill we would have to sell up and downsize, our house isn't guaranteed for life I don't see why council tenants should expect it.


*What about the people that have agreed to down size but there are no smaller places available. Is it right that they still have to pay the bedroom tax?*


----------



## Pawscrossed

Genuinely gutted. Second to UKIP getting in, Tories was the next worst outcome in my opinion. No point trying to persuade me otherwise, I can't begin to work out why anyone would vote for a party that, as sure as Cameron is a knob, will bring back fox hunting. I predict I'll have been arrested by the end of their four year term.


----------



## Pointermum

JANICE199 said:


> *What about the people that have agreed to down size but there are no smaller places available. Is it right that they still have to pay the council tax?*


Please read what I said ! I said it's not right how they have gone about it, they should of made sure there was enough property for people to swap or downsize to.


----------



## Pawscrossed

JANICE199 said:


> *God help the people in this country. Many are going to suffer for yet another 5 years. I for one feel so sad to think people would still vote for such an evil party.:Rage*


Did you vote? I seem to recall that you implied you were not in a previous thread on PF.


----------



## havoc

_ do wonder, how many that said they were going to vote UKIP, actually voted Tory_
Not so many I'd say. Ukip have over three times as many votes as the SNP but not the seats. Never thought I'd have reason to be thankful for our unfair system. It's also worth noting that Ukip votes aren't just coming from former Tory voters, they're taking plenty of Labour votes.


----------



## Nicky10

Because Fox hunting is the only thing the Tories will do? They've "promised" a referendum on the eu, won't be under the control of the snp.


----------



## JANICE199

Pawscrossed said:


> Did you vote? I seem to recall that you implied you were not in a previous thread on PF.


*I have never hidden the fact that i have never voted. So your point is?*


----------



## noushka05

Great news just in from Brighton Pavilion - awesome Caroline Lucas has retained her seat. 


on a depressing note all the blood junkies on twitter are gloating that more pro hunting MPs are place now to repeal the hunting ban.


----------



## rona

Pawscrossed said:


> Genuinely gutted. Second to UKIP getting in, Tories was the next worst outcome in my opinion. No point trying to persuade me otherwise, I can't begin to work out why anyone would vote for a party that, as sure as Cameron is a knob, will bring back fox hunting. I predict I'll have been arrested by the end of their four year term.


They didn't last time and I very much doubt it will happen this time either. I don't think too many people are bothered anyway.


----------



## Pawscrossed

JANICE199 said:


> *I have never hidden the fact that i have never voted. So your point is?*


I completely agree that the Tories are dangerous as you say. We're in a strong Tory place here and I do feel my vote was pointless this morning, depressingly so but I felt that even though it would be wasted, I made an officially recorded point by ticking against an opposing party with better ethics. I've never not voted so I'm being nosey really (!) as I can't get into that mindset.

I wonder if there is any poll or data that measures the impact on the non-voters on the outcome of the results.


----------



## Pawscrossed

noushka05 said:


> Great news just in from Brighton Pavilion - awesome Caroline Lucas has retained her seat.
> 
> on a depressing note all the blood junkies on twitter are gloating that more pro hunting MPs are place now to repeal the hunting ban.


Yes I saw that too - see you jail eh?


----------



## noushka05

Pointermum said:


> Add to that they stopped child benefit for the "rich" .
> 
> Being considered as the "upper/middle class" we have lost money under conservative, *yet I know it's for the greater good of getting the country out of such huge debt so know it was the right thing to do. *
> 
> I've also been the other end of the scale stuck in a one bed flat as a family unable to get a council place because people live in places too big for their needs, I don't agree with how they went about the bedroom tax but in principle it's a good idea (providing they helped and provided enough accommodation for those who wished to downsize) . My sister is just looking into a house swap where a women has a 3 bed house with just her and her daughter , where as my sister has a 2 bed with a 11yr old girl and 2 yr old boy and her partner they would be stuck like that forever if the bedroom tax not been brought in. If my husband lost his job or became ill we would have to sell up and downsize, our house isn't guaranteed for life I don't see why council tenants should expect it.


The 'huge debt' was a lie PM - to siphon off public funds. We've now got millions of people suffering under their imposed austerity ideology yet they've still managed to triple the debt. Its insane.

Watch Osborne get nailed over the debt lie


----------



## shetlandlover

I watched Joey Essex program last night about voting ect and he made a good statement on there for someone who had no idea on voting..he stated

"if you don't vote you can't complain about who wins". 

I think not voting is as much of a right as voting is however you are going to voice how much you disagree with the win you need to get out and vote for the party you feel will do the least damage.


----------



## noushka05

Pawscrossed said:


> Yes I saw that too - see you jail eh?


lol Its looking that way. I think the jails are going to be pretty full of protesters. Infact im actually pinning my hopes on an uprising now lol


----------



## cheekyscrip

Ed Miliband was not a good choice...why Labour put him in the helm.

Trade Unions wanted him? So this is where they are now...I have no vote...but would not vote for Plastic Ed..
His brother was better.
And the endorsment from Comedians..seriously?


----------



## JANICE199

shetlandlover said:


> I watched Joey Essex program last night about voting ect and he made a good statement on there for someone who had no idea on voting..he stated
> 
> "if you don't vote you can't complain about who wins".
> 
> I think not voting is as much of a right as voting is however you are going to voice how much you disagree with the win you need to get out and vote for the party you feel will do the least damage.


*I will quote RB here. *
*[Russell Brand]
You don't have to listen to my political point of view. But it's not that I'm not voting out of apathy; I'm not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now, and has now reached fever pitch where we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that are not being represented by that political system. So voting for it is tacit complicity with that system, and that's not something I'm offering up.*


----------



## Pawscrossed

When one is trying to do something beyond his known powers it is useless to seek the approval of friends. Friends are at their best in moments of defeat. Forget politics and just all help each other where you can. The world will be a much better place for that.


----------



## noushka05

Hanwombat said:


> I voted tories - so shoot me then!


I'm thinking of shooting myself lol


----------



## havoc

*we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that are not being represented by that political system*
No, they aren't disenfranchised. The turnout was around 65% - that's 65% of those who bother to register bothered to vote. 35% couldn't be bothered. They could have made a huge difference.


----------



## JANICE199

cheekyscrip said:


> Ed Miliband was not a good choice...why Labour put him in the helm.
> 
> Trade Unions wanted him? So this is where they are now...I have no vote...but would not vote for Plastic Ed..
> His brother was better.
> And the endorsment from Comedians..seriously?


*I strongly believe that Labour now need to change their leader. Also they need to get back to old Labour values.*


----------



## rona

cheekyscrip said:


> Ed Miliband was not a good choice...why Labour put him in the helm.
> 
> Trade Unions wanted him? So this is where they are now...I have no vote...but would not vote for Plastic Ed..
> His brother was better.
> And the endorsment from Comedians..seriously?


A quote from Boris about the chances of him and his brother both being elected.
"
"Good question. Don't know. Could be," Mr Johnson said. "But as I never tire of saying we Johnsons have a very different approach to fraternal relationships."

"We don't use that phrase [backstabbing]," he added.

This is one of the major reasons that that little worm was rejected I believe. Just think what it did to his aged mother let alone his brother. At least his brother wouldn't have been a trade union puppet


----------



## rona

JANICE199 said:


> *I strongly believe that Labour now need to change their leader. Also they need to get back to old Labour values.*


I wish they would get their values back Jan. At the moment they actually stand for nothing......................


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> I wish they would get their values back Jan. At the moment they actually stand for nothing......................


*I agree rona. All the parties now seem like Tories. There isn't the difference between them that we use to see.*


----------



## Bisbow

Praise be !

Thank heaven common sense prevailed.
Mr Sillyband was never a leader and would have led this country to destruction.


----------



## rona

Nigel's might be the last to declare


----------



## JANICE199

Bisbow said:


> Praise be !
> 
> Thank heaven common sense prevailed.
> Mr Sillyband was never a leader and would have led this country to destruction.


*Ok i have to ask, what good will the Tories do for this country. It's a genuine question.*


----------



## Bisbow

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok i have to ask, what good will the Tories do for this country. It's a genuine question.*


Labour left this country up to it's thighs in the mire, The tories have got us up to our knees, in 5 years we will be on solid ground again


----------



## MoggyBaby

Spellweaver said:


> Let's just hope the exit poll is wrong. (((((hugs)))))
> 
> This is what people who support Tories ought to be made to reslise - the effect their actions are going to have on poeple who are not as lucky to be as rich as them. I'd say I hope all the Tory voters can live with themselves afterwards, but it's my guess that anyone who has voted Tory has already shown that all they think about is themselves geting richer, and couldn't care less how it will affect the most vulnerable people in our society.


Under the Tories, I will probably be slightly better off. Not hugely but a little. However, even in that knowledge, I could not vote for them yesterday because you cannot put a price on clean, drinkable water from your taps (fracking will put an end to that), green, pleasant countryside full of wildlife (hunting & culling will put an end to that), not having to worry about paying for your healthcare (privatising the NHS will put an end to that) or knowing that one day you can retire from your 40 hr a week job and be able to put your feet up (continuing raises of the pension age will put an end to that).

The little money I will gain from this election will not be enough to cover the loss of any of the above.


----------



## JANICE199

Bisbow said:


> Labour left this country up to it's thighs in the mire, The tories have got us up to our knees, in 5 years we will be on solid ground again


*We will have to disagree on that. But i bet you, this government will completely ruin this country. They have, and always will be, only interest in people with money.*


----------



## Bisbow

I hope you are not saying I am rich,I am not.
I come from a working class family my father was a cement labourer but I will say when I was left to bring up a child alone t was better off under the tories than labour and found I have always been better off when they have been in power.
Labour have never done well for me or mine


----------



## havoc

_I hope all the Tory voters can live with themselves afterwards_
With a completely clear conscience. The only other party with a chance and gaining ground alarmingly in my constituency were UKIP. Three further candidates all lost their deposits so I called it right. Did I vote Tory last time round - no.


----------



## Pawscrossed

How many voted because of the leader and not the policies - thanks to the media it's becoming more like a presidential Americanised race. No word of a lie, a lady at work said 'Oh I'm glad it's Cameron he's much nicer than Milliband", to which my colleague asked if she supported fracking and fox hunting and apparently she doesn't. Didn't actually know what the Tory policies are...


----------



## JANICE199

Bisbow said:


> I hope you are not saying I am rich,I am not.
> I come from a working class family my father was a cement labourer but I will say when I was left to bring up a child alone t was better off under the tories than labour and found I have always been better off when they have been in power.
> Labour have never done well for me or mine


*No i would not assume anything. I was stating what the Tories do. They have never been interested in the least well off.*


----------



## Bisbow

JANICE199 said:


> *No i would not assume anything. I was stating what the Tories do. They have never been interested in the least well off.*


Well, they were me when I was down on my uppers


----------



## JANICE199

Bisbow said:


> Well, they were me when I was down on my uppers


*Then i'm pleased for you.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Spellweaver said:


> And to all who voted conservative - I don't know how you can live with yourselves. I hope your personal wealth, at the expense of all the above, turns out to be worth it for you.


Wow, pretty gross assumptions on your part. Ed Balls losing his seat shows that the public did not share your confidence in a labour government holding the purse strings. The NHS will still be here in 5 years time of that I am certain.


----------



## Goblin

Well for all of us uncaring rich sods who are prepared to actually work 50+ hours a week for a living and try to save money, improving the lives of their family the result may be actually something positive. 

Whilst people should protect and support those who NEED assistance others claim this makes us uncaring. Funny how earning money and giving to charity means you are uncaring. Funny how those who accuse others of giving out labels are so quick to give negative labels out themselves. Nobody has said the poor shouldn't be protected when needed. However there is a difference in protecting those who need it and those who simply want to take. 

I didn't vote Tory, in fact I didn't vote as In my opinion there were no choices I was happy with and the main issue for me personally is the EU. What remains.. no idea. Let's face it people need to push for proportional representation. People need to push against resumption of fox hunting. People need to push against TTIP. The general election isn't simply the end point.


----------



## JANICE199

Goblin said:


> Well for all of us uncaring rich sods who are prepared to actually work 50+ hours a week for a living and try to save money, improving the lives of their family the result may be actually something positive.
> 
> Whilst people should protect and support those who NEED assistance others claim this makes us uncaring. Funny how earning money and giving to charity means you are uncaring. Funny how those who accuse others of giving out labels are so quick to give negative labels out themselves. Nobody has said the poor shouldn't be protected when needed. However there is a difference in protecting those who need it and those who simply want to take.
> 
> I didn't vote Tory, in fact I didn't vote as In my opinion there were no choices I was happy with and the main issue for me personally is the EU. What remains.. no idea. Let's face it people need to push for proportional representation. People need to push against resumption of fox hunting. People need to push against TTIP. The general election isn't simply the end point.


*I'd like to point out, it's not just " rich sods" that are working 50 + hours a week. And there are many doing such hours and more but are still in hardship.They can't afford to save, let alone share any of their money.*
*No i'm not having a dig, just pointing out what some people are forgetting.*


----------



## Pointermum

The benefit system needs to be there for those who are in true need. You argue that only a tiny X % are abusing the system, legally yes only a small percentage are but how many are morally abusing the system?


----------



## emmaviolet

I think the result is shocking really.

I find it hard to fathom that anyone who has been ill and disabled, has loved ones who have been ill and disabled and are animal lovers would ever vote for the tories, but there you go. Quite an eye opener.

My grandfather had lung cancer and without his DLA the last few months of his life would have been hell without ways to transport him to and from treatment. The tories have removed dla from people who were dying of cancer, like wise their incapacity benefit/ESA. 

God forbid people need help, compassion, care or medical treatment because under this government you will be hard pushed to get any of them
It's going to be a bleak country, it's already got more and more vile and hate crime on the disabled is soaring.

Congrats to all who voted for them, I hope you get everything you wished for when putting that cross in the box, odds are you won't though!


----------



## JANICE199

Pointermum said:


> The benefit system needs to be there for those who are in true need. You argue that only a tiny X % are abusing the system, legally yes only a small percentage are but how many are morally abusing the system ? My other sister who has never worked a day in her life , has 5 kids and a 5 bed semi detached house thanks to the benefit system, THIS is what has to stop !! Instead of blaming people who have worked their way up from nothing, to earn something and who do pay a huge amount in tax, without them we would be lost.


*What about all of the tax dodgers? What will this government do to claim all of the unpaid taxes? This is where people should be looking.*


----------



## smoking guns

I was so disappointed this morning when I left for work that I was forced to buy two McDonalds hash browns for breakfast to make myself feel better.


----------



## JANICE199

smoking guns said:


> I was so disappointed this morning when I left for work that I was forced to buy two McDonalds hash browns for breakfast to make myself feel better.


*Erm, what about the rest of us? I could do with a big mac right now. Comfort food, you understand. lol layful*


----------



## Pointermum

.


----------



## Jonescat

smoking guns said:


> I was so disappointed this morning when I left for work that I was forced to buy two McDonalds hash browns for breakfast to make myself feel better.


It was a pain au raisin and a black coffee for me but same thing really. Can't say it has worked too well but I have woken up a bit.


----------



## JANICE199

Pointermum said:


> You ALWAYS come out with this argument without ever answering what should be done about people like my sister on benefits ? (I once worked out that with her housing, tax credits, child benefit and so on she took home the same as someone on over 60K a year and that was before she added child 5 and then claimed carers allowance for her child with ADHD that see leaves her teenager 5 nights a week to look after ) The tax loopholes are slowly being closed down, more so be the Conservatives than Labour


*Sorry it was not my intention to avoid the subject. But now i will answer and i'm sure many won't like what i'm going to say.*
*I do not believe benefits should be paid to those who genuinely refuse to help themselves. I don't believe other people should go to work to pay for childcare for others. If you have children you should work and pay for them. I understand people from all walks of life fall on hard times, and these are the people we should help, along with the sick and vonerable.(sp). I could go on, but i think you might have got the picture.*


----------



## Happy Paws2

Well I always thought that most of the population of the UK were thick, well they proofed it yesterday. (run to find hole to hide in)


----------



## Pointermum

JANICE199 said:


> *Sorry it was not my intention to avoid the subject. But now i will answer and i'm sure many won't like what i'm going to say.*
> *I do not believe benefits should be paid to those who genuinely refuse to help themselves. I don't believe other people should go to work to pay for childcare for others. If you have children you should work and pay for them. I understand people from all walks of life fall on hard times, and these are the people we should help, along with the sick and vonerable.(sp). I could go on, but i think you might have got the picture.*


See now we agree with each other :Cat


----------



## MoggyBaby

smoking guns said:


> I was so disappointed this morning when I left for work that I was forced to buy two McDonalds hash browns for breakfast to make myself feel better.


I wish I had thought of that!! I had a poxy yoghurt.... ok, it was actually quite tasty but it has done nothing to remove the concrete feeling of despondancy sitting in the pit of my stomach right now.

I may need to have 2 choccy biscuits for my elevenses instead.......


----------



## silvi

Well, I voted Labour, but I'm not surprised at the Conservative majority win.
It has been proved again and again that Labour cannot win in England when faced with a media that is so pro-Tory, and with an English working class electorate that, overall, does not understand what they are voting for.
(and if anyone says "well, Blair won" that is because he had media backing and was 'New Labour'. The media knew he wasn't a threat to basic Tory values and that when he left, they could easily discredit any of his successors who might not be as compliant).

Congratulations to those Tory voters who believe in Tory policies and understood what they will mean for the country. I respect anyone who has reasoned out what they want from a political party and whether or not they think that party will provide it for them.

There are some on this forum who have obviously looked deeply into the political arguments from all parties and chose the Tory side. You voted according to your well-reasoned deductions and decided to vote Tory because it would be the best party for you.

Respect to you. I may not agree with your arguments, but I definitely respect your well-thought-out decisions.

What does sadden me however, is that, in England anyway, it appears that there are many, many people who do not understand politics and who instead rely upon sound bites, media images, and scare tactics to make their decisions.

There is a large proportion of people already living close to the edge who appear to believe that immigration is to blame for most of Britain's ills and that the NHS would be better off without immigration.
There is also the complete disregard for TTIP, or even an understanding that it is something to be reckoned with.

I just wish these people had bothered to read the Tory party's manifesto and to find out about their impact on this country since 2010 and what those two factors mean for the future. I also wish that those working class people who voted UKIP had managed to figure out that a vote for a far right party was not going to get the Tories out....

But I'll stop there....... for now.......


----------



## Happy Paws2

I've had to settle for some malt loaf this morning not a good choice, pity I don't have a McDonalds nearby I really could do with a chocolate milk shake and burger.


----------



## Pointermum

Is it wrong that I feel sorry for Farage :Jawdrop he comes 3rd in all the voting yet only gets 1 seat :Wacky Not that I would want him in !


----------



## negative creep

George Galloway lost his seat, and was magnanimous in defeat as always

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...at-to-naz-shah-in-bradford-west-10234791.html

I think my feelings can be summed up by the following picture


----------



## Ang2

For me, a Conservative government was the second best choice! They have adopted many of UKIP's policies and promised a referendum on the EU.

Having voted labour, all my life, as did my parents and their parents - they have run this country into the ground over their last years in power. The UK is nothing more than a Welfare state, and an International one at that! Conservative voters are not animal haters as some have suggested. I work all hours god sends to support my ten animals. I am not pro hunting, but this wasn't an animal welfare election! There are other bigger issues.


----------



## silvi

What summed up a very disappointing night for me was that just before I turned the PC off, I checked the 'cancelled or renewed' US programs out of interest....and found out that _Forever_ has just been cancelled. I don't know why, but that program is my guilty pleasure.
So that was the icing on a s****y cake, lol!


----------



## havoc

_I think my feelings can be summed up by the following picture_
That's me every time I see Salmond. I'm pretty sure he thought he was well set for ministerial office in a coalition govt.


----------



## emmaviolet

Ang2 said:


> For me, a Conservative government was the second best choice! They have adopted many of UKIP's policies and promised a referendum on the EU.
> 
> Having voted labour, all my life, as did my parents and their parents - they have run this country into the ground over their last years in power. The UK is nothing more than a Welfare state, and an International one at that! Conservative voters are not animal haters as some have suggested. I work all hours god sends to support my ten animals. I am not pro hunting, but this wasn't an animal welfare election! There are other bigger issues.


They promised one last time too, five years have passed and one hasn't happened and one will not and if it does it will be another scaremongering campaign too as they cannot afford to leave the EU and cannot allow it to happen, mark my words it will never happen!


----------



## noushka05

MoggyBaby said:


> Under the Tories, I will probably be slightly better off. Not hugely but a little. However, even in that knowledge, I could not vote for them yesterday because you cannot put a price on clean, drinkable water from your taps (fracking will put an end to that), green, pleasant countryside full of wildlife (hunting & culling will put an end to that), not having to worry about paying for your healthcare (privatising the NHS will put an end to that) or knowing that one day you can retire from your 40 hr a week job and be able to put your feet up (continuing raises of the pension age will put an end to that).
> 
> The little money I will gain from this election will not be enough to cover the loss of any of the above.


All these things are priceless & precious to me as well MB  I don't care about material wealth, I care about things that really matter, real treasures.

And we're not the only ones feeling like this, a few tweets from miserable people this morning -

*JasonManford*@JasonManford · 11h11 hours ago
Ah well. NHS, it's been a pleasure knowing you. Thank you for everything

*Dr Shibley*‏@*legalaware*2h2 hours ago
Get ready folks for *NHS* privatisation - the "endgame"

*Caroline Allen*‏@*Green_Caroline*3h3 hours agoIslington, London
So the queue outside the GPs I walk passed on way to work is longer then ever this morning. Symbolic. RIP *NHS*.

*n_Bowkett*5h5 hours ago
If Tories are winners tonight then *NHS*, schools, policing, councils, private renters, young people, the disabled and the UK are losers.

1,761 retweets953 favorites

*muels*3h3 hours ago
Rarely does a morning begin with such bleakness; human rights, welfare, housing, *NHS*, badgers, foxes, bees, climate change ....all at risk

@charliemoores · 3h3 hours ago
A nation of animal lovers votes for more culling, more hunting, more env degradation, more sidelining of wildlife. Very sad.

MatthewOates · 3h3 hours ago
'The age of the Badger and the Hen Harrier is over. The time the Orc has come...'

*Birder*2h2 hours ago
Overnight the future became very bleak for everything I care about, the *NHS*, our wildlife, social justice. #*GE2015* #*heartbroken*




*Clive Peedell*‏@*cpeedell*2h2 hours ago
With a likely Tory majority, it is even more important that we continue to build @*NHAparty* to defend our *NHS*. I'm 100% committed to this aim

47 retweets34 favorites

*spoooner*1h1 hour ago
Social housing - gone. *NHS* as we know it - gone. Welfare state - gone. A govt looking out for ordinary folk - gone

m · 13h13 hours ago
UK officially died today.... Just like the Wildlife... #*GE2015*

*Marcus Chown*@marcuschown · 3h3 hours ago
Never before has an election been decided on the basis of so many lies. Media, including BBC, simply regurgitated them. Democracy undermine

raser_NUIM · 9h9 hours ago
So it's a victory for the rightwing press in UK. They've promoted a hatred for immigrants, the poor, the downtrodden. Voters have followed.

244 retweets112 favorites

And heres a couple of tweets of hope from Paloma Faith & Owen Jones lol

*Paloma Faith*@Palomafaith · 3h3 hours ago
Be light! Be kind! Humility is the key! And don't be dissuaded-hope still exists we must take to the streets!

*Owen Jones*@OwenJones84 · 31m31 minutes ago
Don't mourn. Organise. And this time, let's actually mean it.

1,295 retweets1,145 favorites


----------



## westie~ma

Voted for Labour, where I am is a safe seat.

Bit stunned at result, all I've seen on news for the last however many weeks/years is people moaning about severe austerity and then they've voted for more :Nailbiting

I don't get benefits (nothing) but the Tories will squeeze us even more than they have what this means for my family's future in Wales is worrying, while I love living here if we need more money to maintain our life, or dare I say improve, then we have to leave as there are not sufficient jobs here above a certain level.

Eta, whatever the result it would take wild horses to drag me to a McD's for food.


----------



## LinznMilly

Pawscrossed said:


> How many voted because of the leader and not the policies - thanks to the media it's becoming more like a presidential Americanised race. No word of a lie, a lady at work said 'Oh I'm glad it's Cameron he's much nicer than Milliband", to which my colleague asked if she supported fracking and fox hunting and apparently she doesn't. Didn't actually know what the Tory policies are...


Beyond disappointed, but I agree with this entirely.

I've previously mentioned a colleague who was going to vote UKIP. Turns out she changed her mind at the last minute, after watching the TV the night before. She said she couldn't vote for Labour because they didn't plan to increase the min wage until 2017, and Cameron said "Don't mess it up now" or some such. I asked her if she valued the NHS and the environment, and of course she said yes - didn't have the slightest idea they were part of the Tory's manifesto.


----------



## Goblin

JANICE199 said:


> *What about all of the tax dodgers? What will this government do to claim all of the unpaid taxes? This is where people should be looking.*


I've given examples of where tax loopholes are being closed down by the tories. I've given examples of how the rich are actually being targetted and penalized for being rich by the tories. These are facts. I've also given a proven reason why simply raising tax for the rich doesn't work. Brown tried that in 2010 when 2/3rds of the millionaires in the UK left reducing income by 7 billion. Solve the welfare state and target based on need not on want and you would solve a lot, including potentially reducing immigration whilst continuing to close those loopholes. At the moment, the targetting is wrong for the poor. I hope all can agree on that and nobody has ever said or is complacent about it. Instead we hear "no it's all propaganda". Maybe people don't agree simply as they know personal examples where people abuse the system as I do. Just as we get accused of media biased and not everyone is the same, the same applies on the other end of the scale. How many millionaires are actually self made and nothing to do with bankers or the finance industry? How many have actually worked their socks off to be in that position and in the process actually created jobs and opportunities for others? It's not simply haves and have nots for no reason. Do I believe bankers deserve bonuses.. no, do I believe celebrities should earn millions simply as they are famous, no. However at the same time we cannot and should not steal from the rich simply to pay for those who have no interest in helping themselves or society.


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> I'm thinking of shooting myself lol


Can't believe 5 people liked that idea


----------



## Satori

Happy Paws said:


> Well I always thought that most of the population of the UK were thick, well they proofed it yesterday. (run to find hole to hide in)


You mean the 64% who didn't vote Tory?


----------



## ForestWomble

When I saw the results this morning = :Bawling

I am scared for myself and everyone else who depends on the NHS and disability benefits.

Very sad morning 



JANICE199 said:


> *Erm, what about the rest of us? I could do with a big mac right now. Comfort food, you understand. lol layful*


For you JANICE and everyone else who wants comfort food:


----------



## Nicky10

It's been quite amusing listening to a debate here. Just how many times do you think a politician during a 5 minute monologue can claim the party didn't make a pact? Because it's surprisingly a lot  and he was lying through his teeth the whole time.


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> Can't believe 5 people liked that idea


I can  hahaa


----------



## westie~ma

Clegg has walked, he looks as grey as that wall he's standing in front of, twonk that he is.


----------



## Mr Gizmo

Jan199,with all your input in this thread how did you try and make a difference ?
Sorry I forgot,you didn't.
With what looks like a 66% turnout think what a change all the non voters could have done.


JANICE199 said:


> *I can't vote as i missed the deadline for registering. But hand on heart, i had every intention of voting this year. My vote would have gone to Labour. The very thought of the tories getting in again scares the sh*t out of me. Too many people have suffered under the Tories.*


----------



## noushka05

westie~ma said:


> Clegg has walked, he looks as grey as that wall he's standing in front of, twonk that he is.


Good! I'm just hearing Farage has quit as well.


----------



## JANICE199

Mr Gizmo said:


> Jan199,with all your input in this thread how did you try and make a difference ?
> Sorry I forgot,you didn't.
> With what looks like a 66% turnout think what a change all the non voters could have done.


*Why would i vote for a load of plonkers? I can still voice my opinion. *


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> All these things are priceless & precious to me as well MB  I don't care about material wealth, I care about things that really matter, real treasures


Like the majority despite many accusations.



noushka05 said:


> Good! I'm just hearing Farage has quit as well.


Whilst I do not agree with the UKIP and it's policies it is another example of how the election system fails. How can a party get a large % of the vote yet not have that % represented as a voice in parliament? How can this be implemented when the two main parties have no interest in changing the system as they benefit from it?


----------



## silvi

Mr Gizmo said:


> Jan199,with all your input in this thread how did you try and make a difference ?
> Sorry I forgot,you didn't.
> With what looks like a 66% turnout think what a change all the non voters could have done.


I think it's unfair to single out people for failing to register to vote when you don't know the reason.

But as for others failing to register, I believe there were many who never received their papers in time and others who were registered for the wrong constituency and couldn't vote as a result. There were other constituencies where the ballot papers were messed up, and so on....

There are also other reasons why people cannot register and we can only guess how they would have voted.
So yes, if they were all Labour voters it may have made a difference (depending on the spread of their vote), but we don't know, so it's a bit of a moot point.


----------



## soulful dog

silvi said:


> Well, I voted Labour, but I'm not surprised at the Conservative majority win.
> It has been proved again and again that Labour cannot win in England when faced with a media that is so pro-Tory, and with an English working class electorate that, overall, does not understand what they are voting for.
> (and if anyone says "well, Blair won" that is because he had media backing and was 'New Labour'. The media knew he wasn't a threat to basic Tory values and that when he left, they could easily discredit any of his successors who might not be as compliant).
> 
> Congratulations to those Tory voters who believe in Tory policies and understood what they will mean for the country. I respect anyone who has reasoned out what they want from a political party and whether or not they think that party will provide it for them.
> 
> There are some on this forum who have obviously looked deeply into the political arguments from all parties and chose the Tory side. You voted according to your well-reasoned deductions and decided to vote Tory because it would be the best party for you.
> 
> Respect to you. I may not agree with your arguments, but I definitely respect your well-thought-out decisions.
> 
> What does sadden me however, is that, in England anyway, it appears that there are many, many people who do not understand politics and who instead rely upon sound bites, media images, and scare tactics to make their decisions.
> 
> There is a large proportion of people already living close to the edge who appear to believe that immigration is to blame for most of Britain's ills and that the NHS would be better off without immigration.
> There is also the complete disregard for TTIP, or even an understanding that it is something to be reckoned with.
> 
> I just wish these people had bothered to read the Tory party's manifesto and to find out about their impact on this country since 2010 and what those two factors mean for the future. I also wish that those working class people who voted UKIP had managed to figure out that a vote for a far right party was not going to get the Tories out....
> 
> But I'll stop there....... for now.......


Well said, I'd like this post a hundred times if possible.

Apologies for dragging this off at a tangent most of you probably have no interest in, but while Conservatives getting back into Government without needing a coalition is obviously huge, the story in Scotland is even more amazing.

Staying in Scotland, the biggest disappointment of this election has been the demonisation of Sturgeon and the SNP in England (by both the media and the other political parties), plus the kind of comments by Miliband today saying Labour have been overwhelmed by a "surge of nationalism" after being all but wiped out in Scotland is laughable and just typifies everything that is wrong about the UK government.

The surge of the SNP in the last 10 years is less about "nationalism" and more to do with people being disillusioned with Labour, and learning that the SNP is about far more than independence, and that not only do they have a lot of policies people agree with, but consequently they are more than able to form the Government and do a pretty good job of it! (We used to get scare stories about how it would be a disaster if the SNP were to win power in Scotland, a bit like the scare stories we get now of Sturgeon being the most dangerous woman in the UK).

They have grown from being a clear second to Labour, to being part of a minority coalition in the Scottish Parliament (2007), and then to being the majority government (a significant feat in our PR system in Scottish Elections). If all they were about is "nationalism" and breaking up the UK, their vote would be at the lower levels it used to be back in the early days when they were little more than a nationalist party.

I wish the rest of the country would wake up to this and stop believing the rubbish we hear about them. Not that it matters I suppose, as its only in Scotland people can and will vote for them, but I really do hope the SNP do their utmost to push for limited austerity measures and try to make Westminster more progressive - although with a Tory majority, there is little hope of that - they will certainly do a better job than Labour have being doing for the past 10 years, even with their limited reach in Westminster.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Like the majority despite many accusations.
> 
> Whilst I do not agree with the UKIP and it's policies it is another example of how the election system fails. How can a party get a large % of the vote yet not have that % represented as a voice in parliament? How can this be implemented when the two main parties have no interest in changing the system as they benefit from it?


In this case, I am glad that PR is not an option.
A country with a substantial number of UKIP MPs would not be a stable country at all.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> In this case, I am glad that PR is not an option.
> A country with a substantial number of UKIP MPs would not be a stable country at all.


Don't agree. It's a fundamental fault with the democracy of this country even though I do not agree with the parties concerned. Just as I do not agree with someone who voted UKIP doesn't mean I am justified to want their vote silenced. Their vote should be just as valid as mine. Isn't that what democracy is about?


----------



## Pawscrossed

Mr Gizmo said:


> Jan199,with all your input in this thread how did you try and make a difference ?
> Sorry I forgot,you didn't.
> With what looks like a 66% turnout think what a change all the non voters could have done.


66% - wow. I wish there was a way to pick out the 'can't be arsed' from the 'nobody is relevant' and measure this.

I still hate the Tories. As mentioned, I'll likely have a criminal record for protests against hunting and fracking but a tiny, minuscule crumb is that they got Farage out. Their manifesto still has no relevance to me whatsoever.


----------



## JANICE199

*Ed milliband is resigning. He should have gone sooner.*


----------



## Pointermum

JANICE199 said:


> *Ed milliband is resigning. He should have gone sooner.*


3 in one day :Jawdrop that's a big change in the face of politics :Wideyed


----------



## Goblin

So how is Paddy Ashdown's hat?


----------



## Dogloverlou

Pawscrossed said:


> 66% - wow. I wish there was a way to pick out the 'can't be arsed' from the 'nobody is relevant' and measure this.
> 
> I still hate the Tories. As mentioned, I'll likely have a criminal record for protests against hunting and fracking but a tiny, minuscule crumb is that they got Farage out. Their manifesto still has no relevance to me whatsoever.


Didn't Cameron say he'd reinstate the hunting law if he won? This doesn't bode well at all


----------



## Elles

He said a lot of things, he said a lot of things last time too. He didn't say he'd reinstate hunting, he said he'd hold a free vote on it, with conservative MPs free to vote against it if they want. If it's something that is important to an individual, they need to lobby their MP, who is supposed to represent their constituents.


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> Like the majority despite many accusations.
> 
> Whilst I do not agree with the UKIP and it's policies it is another example of how the election system fails. How can a party get a large % of the vote yet not have that % represented as a voice in parliament? How can this be implemented when the two main parties have no interest in changing the system as they benefit from it?


I'm sorry but they obviously cant be top priorities or they wouldn't vote for a government that will destroy them. We vote for things that matter to us don't we? or whats the point?

I agree with your last point though. We need to change the stupid, unfair first past the post system to proportional representation, asap!



soulful dog said:


> Well said, I'd like this post a hundred times if possible.
> 
> Apologies for dragging this off at a tangent most of you probably have no interest in, but while Conservatives getting back into Government without needing a coalition is obviously huge, the story in Scotland is even more amazing.
> 
> Staying in Scotland, the biggest disappointment of this election has been the demonisation of Sturgeon and the SNP in England (by both the media and the other political parties), plus the kind of comments by Miliband today saying Labour have been overwhelmed by a "surge of nationalism" after being all but wiped out in Scotland is laughable and just typifies everything that is wrong about the UK government.
> 
> The surge of the SNP in the last 10 years is less about "nationalism" and more to do with people being disillusioned with Labour, and learning that the SNP is about far more than independence, and that not only do they have a lot of policies people agree with, but consequently they are more than able to form the Government and do a pretty good job of it! (We used to get scare stories about how it would be a disaster if the SNP were to win power in Scotland, a bit like the scare stories we get now of Sturgeon being the most dangerous woman in the UK).
> 
> They have grown from being a clear second to Labour, to being part of a minority coalition in the Scottish Parliament (2007), and then to being the majority government (a significant feat in our PR system in Scottish Elections). If all they were about is "nationalism" and breaking up the UK, their vote would be at the lower levels it used to be back in the early days when they were little more than a nationalist party.
> 
> I wish the rest of the country would wake up to this and stop believing the rubbish we hear about them. Not that it matters I suppose, as its only in Scotland people can and will vote for them, but I really do hope the SNP do their utmost to push for limited austerity measures and try to make Westminster more progressive - although with a Tory majority, there is little hope of that - they will certainly do a better job than Labour have being doing for the past 10 years, even with their limited reach in Westminster.


What a brilliant post, I wish I could rep you for it


----------



## Spellweaver

Hanwombat said:


> When I voted for Tories - *I wasn't voting for fox hunting etc,* I voted for them because alot of my views seemed to be similar to theirs, not all of them and I wouldn't have wanted to vote for another party just for the hell of it.





Ang2 said:


> *Conservative voters are not animal haters as some have suggested*. I work all hours god sends to support my ten animals. *I am not pro hunting, but this wasn't an animal welfare election! * There are other bigger issues.


But you *were* voting for fox hunting etc Hanwombat. And whether they think of themselves as pro-hunting or not, everyone else who voted conservative *was* voting to bring back fox hunting..

I can completely understand that you weighed up all the alternatives and that, for you, the conservatives best represented your views so you voted for them. Nothing at all wrong with that. But don't try to dodge the responsibility of what you chose to do.

Despite the fact that you might not agree with their policies on "fox-hunting etc",you, and everyone else who voted conservative have to take on the responsibility that you have voted in a party who is committed to increasing cruelty to animals by bringing back fox hunting. You can't dodge responsibility just because you didn't particularly like that policy of theirs. You voted for it as surely as the most ardent fox-hunting person when you put your cross next to Cameron's name.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Wow, pretty gross assumptions on your part. Ed Balls losing his seat shows that the public did not share your confidence in a labour government holding the purse strings. The NHS will still be here in 5 years time of that I am certain.


I hope you are rgiht - not only because I want to still have a job in five year's time, but also for those more vulnerable people in our society who cannot afford to pay for private health care. But I think you are wrong - in five years' time the NHS will be private. And whilst you may think I made gross assumptions, there are many people who agree with me - did you see all the quotes Noush put up?

What did that line in the Joni Mitchell song say> "Don't it all just seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" = that's how many of us see the NHS now/



JANICE199 said:


> *I'd like to point out, it's not just " rich sods" that are working 50 + hours a week. And there are many doing such hours and more but are still in hardship.They can't afford to save, let alone share any of their money.*
> *No i'm not having a dig, just pointing out what some people are forgetting.*


It's a standard Tory way of looking at the world. If you are not rich, you cannot possibly be a hard worker. They conveniently ignore the millions who work their fingers to the bone for a pittance. It's how they salve their consciences about taking money away from the most vulnerable people in society.



Pointermum said:


> Is it wrong that I feel sorry for Farage :Jawdrop he comes 3rd in all the voting yet only gets 1 seat :Wacky Not that I would want him in !


It's the only thing I have ever found that I agree with him on. Much as it pains me to say it, it is unfair that they have such a large number of people voting for them yet end up with one seat, just as it's unfair that only a third of voters voted Tory, and yet they will rule over 100% of the populace. That's what passes for democracy in our country, and it will continue to be like that unless we change the system to a PR system



noushka05 said:


> Good! I'm just hearing Farage has quit as well.


Well, he did - but then he said he might stand for re-election - what a surprise! I bet Cameron also has a "re-think" about standing down as he said he was going to when he didn't think he was going to win the election.

Just had a thought - you know all those promises Cameron made during his campaign because he thought he wasn't going to get in and so wouldn't have to keep to them - you know, 8 billion for the NHS etc etc - wonder how he's going to get out of all those now?


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> I'm sorry but they obviously cant be top priorities or they wouldn't vote for a government that will destroy them. We vote for things that matter to us don't we? or whats the point?


So people who don't agree with you are simply uncaring. Nice to know how judgemental you are. Personally my family, which includes one member recently diagnosed with cancer who lives in the UK are the main priorities. More so than simply trying to gain political points.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> So people who don't agree with you are simply uncaring. Nice to know how judgemental you are. Personally my family, which includes one member recently diagnosed with cancer who lives in the UK are the main priorities. *More so than simply trying to gain political points*.


Sorry to hear that a family member has cancer. However, the fact that you are on the forum trying to score political points shows how much you mean your last tsentence.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> Like you are doing, you mean?


Unlike some I respect others and their viewpoints even if they oppose mine. I don't simply call them uncaring as they do not agree.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Spellweaver said:


> But you *were* voting for fox hunting etc Hanwombat. And whether they think of themselves as pro-hunting or not, everyone else who voted conservative *was* voting to bring back fox hunting..
> 
> I can completely understand that you weighed up all the alternatives and that, for you, the conservatives best represented your views so you voted for them. Nothing at all wrong with that. But don't try to dodge the responsibility of what you chose to do.
> 
> Despite the fact that you might not agree with their policies on "fox-hunting etc",you, and everyone else who voted conservative have to take on the responsibility that you have voted in a party who is committed to increasing cruelty to animals by bringing back fox hunting. You can't dodge responsibility just because you didn't particularly like that policy of theirs. You voted for it as surely as the most ardent fox-hunting person when you put your cross next to Cameron's name.
> 
> I hope you are rgiht - not only because I want to still have a job in five year's time, but also for those more vulnerable people in our society who cannot afford to pay for private health care. But I think you are wrong - in five years' time the NHS will be private. And whilst you may think I made gross assumptions, there are many people who agree with me - did you see all the quotes Noush put up?
> 
> What did that line in the Joni Mitchell song say> "Don't it all just seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" = that's how many of us see the NHS now/
> 
> It's a standard Tory way of looking at the world. If you are not rich, you cannot possibly be a hard worker. They conveniently ignore the millions who work their fingers to the bone for a pittance. It's how they salve their consciences about taking money away from the most vulnerable people in society.
> 
> It's the only thing I have ever found that I agree with him on. Much as it pains me to say it, it is unfair that they have such a large number of people voting for them yet end up with one seat, just as it's unfair that only a third of voters voted Tory, and yet they will rule over 100% of the populace. That's what passes for democracy in our country, and it will continue to be like that unless we change the system to a PR system
> 
> Well, he did - but then he said he might stand for re-election - what a surprise! I bet Cameron also has a "re-think" about standing down as he said he was going to when he didn't think he was going to win the election.
> 
> Just had a thought - you know all those promises Cameron made during his campaign because he thought he wasn't going to get in and so wouldn't have to keep to them - you know, 8 billion for the NHS etc etc - wonder how he's going to get out of all those now?


They have committed to allow a free vote on it, that's not quite the same thing. Animal welfare is something I feel strongly about and will always campaign for but there are other issues in the world too and like many people I voted for the party that overall matched my views the closest (including lower personal threshold for income tax which has benefited many low paid workers). When the free vote comes we will all have to lobby our MPs then. They don't have such a huge majority that they can't be out voted. As for the NHS it does have to evolve and change like every other organisation has to but I do not believe we will end up with a private health system and I think we have heard all that rhetoric about "5 days to save the NHS" before. Sadly labour were not to be trusted with the NHS any more than any other party as we have seen with Mid Staffs and the situation in Wales. Whether Labour lost because people didn't like or trust them or because of their policies I don't know but they now need to pick themselves up and find a new leader/team who listen to peoples concerns. Like them or loathe them UKIP have taken a lot of votes coming 2nd or 3rd in many areas so perhaps the two main parties do need to listen more to the concerns of the public and stop dismissing those concerns with unhelpful labels. I loathe the bedroom tax and will raise that with our new MP when I get the chance.


----------



## Pointermum

Interesting !


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> *Unlike some I respect others and their viewpoints* even if they oppose mine. I don't simply call them uncaring as they do not agree.


No, but you regularly accuse those of us who *do* care and who want to look after the most vulnerable people in our society of wanting to "steal" money from the rich when we advocate the rich doing more to help us out of the recession rather than keep taking money from thiose who can least afford it.


----------



## Spellweaver

rottiepointerhouse said:


> They have committed to allow a free vote on it, that's not quite the same thing. Animal welfare is something I feel strongly about and will always campaign for but there are other issues in the world too and like many people I voted for the party that overall matched my views the closest (including lower personal threshold for income tax which has benefited many low paid workers). When the free vote comes we will all have to lobby our MPs then. They don't have such a huge majority that they can't be out voted.


So that's how you are salving your conscience - in other wprds, "I voted in a party who said they would vote to increase animal cruelty, but when the vote comes, if people lobby their MP and he's a Tory MP and so votes for it then it's not my fault"? Sorry. Don't agree.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> As for the NHS it does have to evolve and change like every other organisation has to but I do not believe we will end up with a private health system and I think we have heard all that rhetoric about "5 days to save the NHS" before.


I do not agree. The NHS is now doomed.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sadly labour were not to be trusted with the NHS any more than any other party as we have seen with Mid Staffs and the situation in Wales.


I have worked in the NHS for over 40 years and without a doubt the times when Labour were in charge saw the most improvements in the NHS, both for patients and staff. But it has never, ever been in such a dire strait as it is now.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Whether Labour lost because people didn't like or trust them or because of their policies I don't know but they now need to pick themselves up and find a new leader/team who listen to peoples concerns. Like them or loathe them UKIP have taken a lot of votes coming 2nd or 3rd in many areas so perhaps the two main parties do need to listen more to the concerns of the public and stop dismissing those concerns with unhelpful labels.


Agree with you there.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I loathe the bedroom tax and will raise that with our new MP when I get the chance.


Good luck with that.


----------



## JANICE199

*So who will take over from Ed? Do they have any " old Labour" left?*


----------



## emmaviolet

Spellweaver said:


> But you *were* voting for fox hunting etc Hanwombat. And whether they think of themselves as pro-hunting or not, everyone else who voted conservative *was* voting to bring back fox hunting..
> 
> Despite the fact that you might not agree with their policies on "fox-hunting etc",you, and everyone else who voted conservative have to take on the responsibility that you have voted in a party who is committed to increasing cruelty to animals by bringing back fox hunting. You can't dodge responsibility just because you didn't particularly like that policy of theirs. You voted for it as surely as the most ardent fox-hunting person when you put your cross next to Cameron's name.


I agree with all of your points SW, but especially this. If you chose the Tories, own it, you can't be against what they stand for yet vote for them, it makes little to no sense, unless you have no opinion on things and vote for who is more charismatic in the press and that alone. If you are anti fox hunting and badgers being killled needlessly then own the fact you support the people who advocate the death of both of these animals..


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> So people who don't agree with you are simply uncaring. Nice to know how judgemental you are. Personally my family, which includes one member recently diagnosed with cancer who lives in the UK are the main priorities. More so than simply trying to gain political points.


Sorry about your family member, I too have family members with serious illnesses, I understand the worry. Fair enough, some people believe the nhs is safe with Cameron because he said so. If he had admitted he was demolishing it & they voted for him, I would say they didn't care enough about it, yes. He did say though, that foxes, badgers, the environment are not safe with him. He has been very open about his intent to bring back hunting with hounds & rolling out the badger cull ( to include killing this years cubs). They've said they intend to wipe our 70% of the badger population. Hundreds of thousands of them! He has said he's 'getting rid of all the green crap' , intends to press ahead with fracking the uk, has made it legal to dump poisonous chemicals under our properties, wont protect our water. He will sign us up to TTIP & CETA - no exemptions! Openly said he'll get rid of our human rights. Sorry but people who voted for him cant possibly care enough about _these_ issues - I stand by that.


----------



## Pointermum

> Harriet Harman says she will stand down as Labour deputy leader when the new leader is elected.
> 
> She says: "With a new leadership team in place, after what has undoubtedly been a serious defeat, the Labour Party will be best-placed to be the strong opposition this country needs - defending our NHS and our public services, and fighting for fairness, equality and social justice."


Another one to bite the dust !


----------



## Lurcherlad

Pawscrossed said:


> Genuinely gutted. Second to UKIP getting in, Tories was the next worst outcome in my opinion. No point trying to persuade me otherwise, I can't begin to work out why anyone would vote for a party that, as sure as Cameron is a knob, will bring back fox hunting. I predict I'll have been arrested by the end of their four year term.


Not every Tory voter is a supporter of fox hunting or the badger cull. Fox hunting hasn't actually stopped anyway - those who support it have managed to get round the ban quite well, I understand. There are many more issues to consider. Not least the future security of one's own family - not great to have to choose one over the other, but that is the unfortunate reality.


----------



## noushka05

Spellweaver said:


> But you *were* voting for fox hunting etc Hanwombat. And whether they think of themselves as pro-hunting or not, everyone else who voted conservative *was* voting to bring back fox hunting..
> 
> I can completely understand that you weighed up all the alternatives and that, for you, the conservatives best represented your views so you voted for them. Nothing at all wrong with that. But don't try to dodge the responsibility of what you chose to do.
> 
> Despite the fact that you might not agree with their policies on "fox-hunting etc",you, and everyone else who voted conservative have to take on the responsibility that you have voted in a party who is committed to increasing cruelty to animals by bringing back fox hunting. You can't dodge responsibility just because you didn't particularly like that policy of theirs. You voted for it as surely as the most ardent fox-hunting person when you put your cross next to Cameron's name.
> 
> I hope you are rgiht - not only because I want to still have a job in five year's time, but also for those more vulnerable people in our society who cannot afford to pay for private health care. But I think you are wrong - in five years' time the NHS will be private. And whilst you may think I made gross assumptions, there are many people who agree with me - did you see all the quotes Noush put up?
> 
> What did that line in the Joni Mitchell song say> "Don't it all just seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" = that's how many of us see the NHS now/
> 
> It's a standard Tory way of looking at the world. If you are not rich, you cannot possibly be a hard worker. They conveniently ignore the millions who work their fingers to the bone for a pittance. It's how they salve their consciences about taking money away from the most vulnerable people in society.
> 
> It's the only thing I have ever found that I agree with him on. Much as it pains me to say it, it is unfair that they have such a large number of people voting for them yet end up with one seat, just as it's unfair that only a third of voters voted Tory, and yet they will rule over 100% of the populace. That's what passes for democracy in our country, and it will continue to be like that unless we change the system to a PR system
> 
> Well, he did - but then he said he might stand for re-election - what a surprise! I bet Cameron also has a "re-think" about standing down as he said he was going to when he didn't think he was going to win the election.
> 
> Just had a thought - you know all those promises Cameron made during his campaign because he thought he wasn't going to get in and so wouldn't have to keep to them - you know, 8 billion for the NHS etc etc - wonder how he's going to get out of all those now?


Thank you Val x

As for his promises - hes now a proven compulsive liar, breaking a few more wont bother him. :/


----------



## rona

Nigel says he may put himself forward again in September for UKIP leadership after he's spoken to his family


----------



## Pawscrossed

http://action.makeseatsmatchvotes.org/ea-action/action


----------



## porps

yay, another failiure for democracy. bring on the anarchy


----------



## noushka05

porps said:


> yay, another failiure for democracy. bring on the anarchy


I really do now think we are going to have to mobilise, or 5 years down the line we'll have nothing left worth fighting for.


----------



## Dogloverlou

Elles said:


> He said a lot of things, he said a lot of things last time too. He didn't say he'd reinstate hunting, he said he'd hold a free vote on it, with conservative MPs free to vote against it if they want. If it's something that is important to an individual, they need to lobby their MP, who is supposed to represent their constituents.


Fat chance of any local MP's around here fighting against the free vote. They're all in agreement!

A big part of me is pretty convinced hunting will not be voted in again because the potential fall out from such a decision is to much of a risk. But it's still rather sickening that a party that endorses ripping foxes to pieces is favoured among the BP.


----------



## Satori

JANICE199 said:


> *So who will take over from Ed? Do they have any " old Labour" left?*


Ladbrokes has Andy Burnham at 5/2, Chukka Umunna at 5/2 and Yvette Cooper at 7/2.

The first two are as big a pair of knob-heads as you could wish to meet. Cooper would be a good choice though, I think.


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> They have committed to allow a free vote on it, that's not quite the same thing. Animal welfare is something I feel strongly about and will always campaign for but there are other issues in the world too and like many people I voted for the party that overall matched my views the closest (including lower personal threshold for income tax which has benefited many low paid workers). When the free vote comes we will all have to lobby our MPs then. They don't have such a huge majority that they can't be out voted. As for the NHS it does have to evolve and change like every other organisation has to but I do not believe we will end up with a private health system and I think we have heard all that rhetoric about "5 days to save the NHS" before. Sadly labour were not to be trusted with the NHS any more than any other party as we have seen with Mid Staffs and the situation in Wales. Whether Labour lost because people didn't like or trust them or because of their policies I don't know but they now need to pick themselves up and find a new leader/team who listen to peoples concerns. Like them or loathe them UKIP have taken a lot of votes coming 2nd or 3rd in many areas so perhaps the two main parties do need to listen more to the concerns of the public and stop dismissing those concerns with unhelpful labels. I loathe the bedroom tax and will raise that with our new MP when I get the chance.


A few years ago our NHS was rated the fairest, most efficient, cheapest health service in the world RPH & the tories undermined it so they could dismantle it. Take a look at this old article - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

Rufus Hound retweeted
*Salma Yaqoob*@SalmaYaqoob · 3h3 hours ago
Today should be a day of national mourning. RIP NHS. RIP Welfare State. RIP Human Rights. RIP Environment. RIP Society #*GE2015*

1,567 retweets931 favorites


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Spellweaver said:


> So that's how you are salving your conscience - in other wprds, "I voted in a party who said they would vote to increase animal cruelty, but when the vote comes, if people lobby their MP and he's a Tory MP and so votes for it then it's not my fault"? Sorry. Don't agree.
> 
> I do not agree. The NHS is now doomed.
> 
> I have worked in the NHS for over 40 years and without a doubt the times when Labour were in charge saw the most improvements in the NHS, both for patients and staff. But it has never, ever been in such a dire strait as it is now.
> 
> Agree with you there.
> 
> Good luck with that.


No I voted for a party who agreed to hold a free vote on whether to reintroduce fox hunting which I don't agree with. There was no one party I agreed with on everything and up until 2 days before I hadn't even decided whether to vote or not as I really don't agree with all of any one party.

I worked for the NHS for years too, on the wards with my sleeves rolled up on the front line so to speak and I disagree with you that things were better under labour. Under labour the rot started to set in, they were in power when to my shame in my profession my 93 year old blind FIL was left lying in his own excrement and when I asked a qualified nurse why he had no water to drink she told me it wasn't her job. That was after 3 terms of labour so sorry if I disagree with you on that score. Labour were also the ones who gave GP's the contracts that allowed them to stop covering out of hours and led to some of the chaos we currently see in A & E departments.

Who knows perhaps we will see the old Lib/Lab pact come back as both parties need to find a way forwards to make themselves more appealing/trusted.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> A few years ago our NHS was rated the fairest, most efficient, cheapest health service in the world RPH & the tories undermined it so they could dismantle it. Take a look at this old article - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services
> 
> Rufus Hound retweeted
> *Salma Yaqoob*@SalmaYaqoob · 3h3 hours ago
> Today should be a day of national mourning. RIP NHS. RIP Welfare State. RIP Human Rights. RIP Environment. RIP Society #*GE2015*
> 
> 1,567 retweets931 favorites


Sorry Noush you can post as many opinions from celebs as you like, the public didn't buy it.  I never read such a load of tosh as that tweet above. Does she seriously expect us to believe that all benefts will be stopped all NHS hospitals will be sold with no free health care? I understand feelings are running high and people are licking their wounds but seriously.


----------



## cheekyscrip

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I voted for a party who agreed to hold a free vote on whether to reintroduce fox hunting which I don't agree with. There was no one party I agreed with on everything and up until 2 days before I hadn't even decided whether to vote or not as I really don't agree with all of any one party.
> 
> I worked for the NHS for years too, on the wards with my sleeves rolled up on the front line so to speak and I disagree with you that things were better under labour. Under labour the rot started to set in, they were in power when to my shame in my profession my 93 year old blind FIL was left lying in his own excrement and when I asked a qualified nurse why he had no water to drink she told me it wasn't her job. That was after 3 terms of labour so sorry if I disagree with you on that score. Labour were also the ones who gave GP's the contracts that allowed them to stop covering out of hours and led to some of the chaos we currently see in A & E departments.
> 
> Who knows perhaps we will see the old Lib/Lab pact come back as both parties need to find a way forwards to make themselves more appealing/trusted.


Just to say I agree with most of your points...
After all it is down to economy and trust...I believe Cameron is better bet there..Miliband for me not one who can be trusted..

LibDem and Labour should and can find better


----------



## JANICE199

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry Noush you can post as many opinions from celebs as you like, the public didn't buy it. I never read such a load of tosh as that tweet above. Does she seriously expect us to believe that all benefts will be stopped all NHS hospitals will be sold with no free health care? I understand feelings are running high and people are licking their wounds but seriously.


*I don't think it was meant as everything will stop. More like, good bye to what we had. Nothing will stay the same.*


----------



## Satori

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry Noush you can post as many opinions from celebs as you like, the public didn't buy it. I never read such a load of tosh as that tweet above. Does she seriously expect us to believe that all benefts will be stopped all NHS hospitals will be sold with no free health care? I understand feelings are running high and people are licking their wounds but seriously.


Then maybe this incisive political analysis from Charlotte Church will sway you?

@soul_of_twit Feel like vomming my heart out.......oh wait that would mean I could join the Conservative party.

6:37 AM - 8 May 2015


----------



## MoggyBaby

soulful dog said:


> I wish the rest of the country would wake up to this and stop believing the rubbish we hear about them. *Not that it matters I suppose, as its only in Scotland people can and will vote for them, but I really do hope the SNP do their utmost to push for limited austerity measures and try to make Westminster more progressive *- although with a Tory majority, there is little hope of that - they will certainly do a better job than Labour have being doing for the past 10 years, even with their limited reach in Westminster.


Had it been possible for folks in England to vote SNP, a great many would have done. Ms Sturgeon impressed a lot of people south of the border and I had more than a few work colleagues say they would have voted for her given the chance to do so.


----------



## emmaviolet

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry Noush you can post as many opinions from celebs as you like, the public didn't buy it. I never read such a load of tosh as that tweet above. Does she seriously expect us to believe that all benefts will be stopped all NHS hospitals will be sold with no free health care? I understand feelings are running high and people are licking their wounds but seriously.


The public as a whole voted mostly not for a conservative government, so that's incorrect, more people didn't want one and didn't vote for one compared to those who do, but that's just how politics works against the percentage.


----------



## rona

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I voted for a party who agreed to hold a free vote on whether to reintroduce fox hunting which I don't agree with. There was no one party I agreed with on everything and up until 2 days before I hadn't even decided whether to vote or not as I really don't agree with all of any one party.
> 
> I worked for the NHS for years too, on the wards with my sleeves rolled up on the front line so to speak and I disagree with you that things were better under labour. Under labour the rot started to set in, they were in power when to my shame in my profession my 93 year old blind FIL was left lying in his own excrement and when I asked a qualified nurse why he had no water to drink she told me it wasn't her job. That was after 3 terms of labour so sorry if I disagree with you on that score. Labour were also the ones who gave GP's the contracts that allowed them to stop covering out of hours and led to some of the chaos we currently see in A & E departments.
> 
> Who knows perhaps we will see the old Lib/Lab pact come back as both parties need to find a way forwards to make themselves more appealing/trusted.


Where's the old rep system when you need it?


----------



## Dogloverlou

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't think it was meant as everything will stop. More like, good bye to what we had. Nothing will stay the same.*


That's the truth.


----------



## Mr Gizmo

JANICE199 said:


> *Why would i vote for a load of plonkers? I can still voice my opinion. *


But you say you would have voted Labour,are they the load of plonkers ? 



silvi said:


> I think it's unfair to single out people for failing to register to vote when you don't know the reason.
> 
> But as for others failing to register, I believe there were many who never received their papers in time and others who were registered for the wrong constituency and couldn't vote as a result. There were other constituencies where the ballot papers were messed up, and so on....
> 
> There are also other reasons why people cannot register and we can only guess how they would have voted.
> So yes, if they were all Labour voters it may have made a difference (depending on the spread of their vote), but we don't know, so it's a bit of a moot point.


I'm sure if there is a genuine reason for not registering Jan would put me straight.
The election has been anounced for quite a few months,I would have though plenty of time,if I'm wrong then I apologise.


----------



## Lurcherlad

MoggyBaby said:


> Had it been possible for folks in England to vote SNP, a great many would have done. Ms Sturgeon impressed a lot of people south of the border and I had more than a few work colleagues say they would have voted for her given the chance to do so.


I'm glad they couldn't. Just because she came across really well doesn't mean she will do right when it comes to it. She may be a good public speaker - that means diddly squat really, surely? Actions speak louder than words.

TBH given the fact that the majority of Scottish voters do not want to leave the UK, I'm surprised that so many of them voted SNP into so many seats, giving them so much power. I wonder if they (we) may live to regret it?


----------



## Lurcherlad

emmaviolet said:


> The public as a whole voted mostly not for a conservative government, so that's incorrect, more people didn't want one and didn't vote for one compared to those who do, but that's just how politics works against the percentage.


But more people voted for the Conservative Party, than any other single party. If we still only had a 3 party system, then the result would possible have been different.


----------



## cheekyscrip

Lurcherlad said:


> I'm glad they couldn't. Just because she came across really well doesn't mean she will do right when it comes to it. She may be a good public speaker - that means diddly squat really, surely? Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> TBH given the fact that the majority of Scottish voters do not want to leave the UK, I'm surprised that so many of them voted SNP into so many seats, giving them so much power. I wonder if they (we) may live to regret it?


Hope not.
Scots are sensible, pragmatic no nonsense folk...and pro Europe...they are the fresh blood needed..
Better than UKiP..They are also hard workers and reliable. Go Scotland!


----------



## JANICE199

Mr Gizmo said:


> *But you say you would have voted Labour,are they the load of plonkers ? *
> 
> I'm sure if there is a genuine reason for not registering Jan would put me straight.
> The election has been anounced for quite a few months,I would have though plenty of time,if I'm wrong then I apologise.


*Yes! I have never liked Labour since they became " new Labour". But i would have given them my vote, sooner than to any of the others.*


----------



## porps




----------



## JANICE199

porps said:


>


*You've gotta love this guy. He spoke a lot of truth.*


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> yay, another failiure for democracy. bring on the anarchy





porps said:


>


Whoever could vote did or not...whoever did vote voted as they chose...porps , darling...maybe they not voted they way you wanted...then join the ED , Clegg and Farage and few others who are also mighty disappointed...drown your sorrows together...

I could not vote though I hold British passport..not Overseas..normal. regular , same as yours and that is where the democracy fails...
Anarchy is the most romantic dream ...like communism and other utopias...

At the moment priapism seems to be your biggest problem, so before NHS dissolves into mass of anarchy get it sorted...


----------



## LinznMilly

Haven't read all the replies (latest replies, that is) simply because I don't have time. Here's my thoughts;

OK, I'm personally disappointed that the Tories are in. The Tories stand for everything I'm against so I could never vote for them. I'm devastated for the implication the election could mean for the NHS, for fox hunting, and for the poor of our society. I'm gutted that we've basically given the Tories the All Clear to start fracking.

I don't blame any single person who voted for the Blues. They voted the way they felt they had to, same as I did (in the end, I voted Greens). I don't believe everyone who voted Blues is a millionaire, or well off. I can only hope that they looked at the same data we non-tory-voters did and simply came up with a different conclusion. Maybe, at the end of the day, they simply put their own needs first. Collectively, they made a difference to the voting, but on a personal level, they didn't.

I suspect, however, that away from this site - and a few others - people voted for the person who sounded the most convincing, or the most appealing to look at. Maybe those who voted UKIP voted because they believed the media hysteria surrounding immigration and "foreigners", perhaps not realising that, behind the scenes, UKIP go much, much further than thinly-veiled racism. Maybe they genuinely thought UKIP offered a real alternative to Tories or Labour.

I suppose, the small consolation for me is that the Tories won outright, as a Tory/UKIP coalition would have been much, much worse, IMHO, than Tories alone.

As for people who haven't voted all, well, unless it's for any other reason than political apathy, I personally hope they don't start moaning about the way the country is run. Assuming they were registered in time, received their polling cards, were in the country yesterday - and possibly a million other genuine reasons for not voting - then, they had their chance to use their vote, they didn't. They don't have the right to moan now.

And yes, I will be saying that to non-voting relatives, too. 

Last one to leave the country, please turn off the lights.


----------



## porps

cheekyscrip said:


> Whoever could vote did or not...whoever did vote voted as they chose...porps , darling...maybe they not voted they way you wanted...then join the ED , Clegg and Farage and few others who are also mighty disappointed...drown your sorrows together...
> 
> I could not vote though I hold British passport..not Overseas..normal. regular , same as yours and that is where the democracy fails...
> Anarchy is the most romantic dream ...like communism and other utopias...
> 
> At the moment priapism seems to be your biggest problem, so before NHS dissolves into mass of anarchy get it sorted...


sigh. yes they would ofc have you beleive that anarchy is just a romantic dream. because they want to keep their power. dont beleive everything thats drilled into your head by the establishment.


----------



## rona

LinznMilly said:


> . Maybe those who voted UKIP voted because they believed the media hysteria surrounding immigration and "foreigners", perhaps not realising that, behind the scenes, UKIP go much, much further than thinly-veiled racism. Maybe they genuinely thought UKIP offered a real alternative to Tories or Labour.
> 
> .


Or maybe they looked beyond the hype


----------



## MoggyBaby

porps said:


>


I voted and I *DO* have a right to complain because I did not get what I voted for. Many people did not and they too, have the right to complain.

But at least we still got off our asses and tried to make a difference, even if - for some - it meant voting against the grain.

The people who TRY to make a difference have every right to complain, those who didn't don't!


----------



## JANICE199

MoggyBaby said:


> I voted and I *DO* have a right to complain because I did not get what I voted for. Many people did not and they too, have the right to complain.
> 
> But at least we still got off our asses and tried to make a difference, even if - for some - it meant voting against the grain.
> 
> The people who TRY to make a difference have every right to complain, those who didn't don't!


*I believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion. It isn't all down to voting, imho. If i have/could change the way one person thought, through what i write, i feel i have contributed.*


----------



## Jesthar

*sigh*

Why is it that after reading this thread, the only real conclusion I have drawn is that as I was unable to find a party I agreed with 100% with policy wise, I was wrong to vote?


----------



## negative creep

Although I'm happy with the result it's a shame that people from all sides use personal attacks on those who voted for someone else - someone on another forum I used even claimed anyone who voted Tory was a thinly veiled fascist

In other news our local Labour candidate didn't even bother to turn up for the vote and plays the race card now he's lost

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Ele...date-bemoans/story-26464621-detail/story.html


----------



## JANICE199

Jesthar said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Why is it that after reading this thread, the only real conclusion I have drawn is that as I was unable to find a party I agreed with 100% with policy wise, I was wrong to vote?


*Why do you feel you were wrong? You did what was right for you..... i hope.*


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Don't agree. It's a fundamental fault with the democracy of this country even though I do not agree with the parties concerned. Just as I do not agree with someone who voted UKIP doesn't mean I am justified to want their vote silenced. Their vote should be just as valid as mine. Isn't that what democracy is about?


Sorry, had work to do and am now just catching up.

My remark was that PR would, this time around, have let the far right have more power. Hence my feelings that I'm glad it wasn't in place.
Doesn't mean that I'm against PR, but it has to be worked through in a way that fits our political system and would (or at least _should_) cause huge changes in voting boundaries in order for us all to get the type of representative we voted for.

But I'm certainly not ashamed of breathing a sigh of relief that at least this time the far right were prevented from accessing power, even if it was by a representation system that many consider to be faulty.

But as for what Democracy is all about.....
It is about _representation_, pure and simple. It is not about "I voted for you so now you will do what I say" as so many people seem to think. To an elected MP, it is about "you voted for me so now I have a mandate to vote the way _I_ please".
Not saying you don't know that Goblin - I'm sure you do - but there are many people who do not realise this and therefore feel that politics and voting isn't working for them, without understanding why.


----------



## Magnus

Oh happy day 

Great result for the country. Best possible outcome all 'round. 
We can now devolve some power to the lunatic nationalistic Scots and bring in English votes for English laws so they aren't able to hold us to ransom over every possible amendment amendment. 
We can look at scrapping the Barnett formula and prevent the Welsh from trying to grasp even more through the same system.
Small businesses won't have to suffer unworkable tinkering by the anti-commercial socialist halfwits and they will also now avoid Labour's inevitable increases in Corporation Tax. This, along with the IMF's assessment of our resurgent economy, will see our stock in the world continue to rise. 
There will be no more having to look at Ed Balls' stupid fat face as he makes childish and wholly inaccurate gesticulations about a flat-lined economy (shame his thieving cow of a wife remains in place to stare wildly and spout her bile) and that gormless geek Miliband has gone now too, brilliant! 
No more having to shoehorn idiotic Liberals into low relevance roles to keep them from crying into their muesli, no more Vince Cable changing his mind over business and finance strategy every two minutes depending on who he was talking to and no more Douglas Alexander smirking away on Question Time like some dirty-minded pubescent schoolboy who has discovered a hole in his pocket lining.
Most of all though I love the fact that the Tory haters are furious. Oh yes, those ovine Labour strongholds where political opinion is inherited rather than considered and where commercial ambition is thought of as evil, will be outraged that their fatuous bleating has been proven to be the whining of a minority. They'll be incandescent that when push came to shove most people disagreed with them. They'll be disappointed to discover that Labour's predilection for getting it totally wrong on the economy has come back to bite them on their collective idiotic arses.

Of course, on here, I will be in the wrong; I am a heterosexual married man who has invested his time, money and efforts in running a business and providing well-paid employment at some significant financial risk to myself. On occasions I have found this forum to be populated by a loud minority of "cat ladies" and people with exaggerated complaints that have given them an ill-deserved income, the hard done to, the misunderstood and the socialist theorists with no care for the reality of business or who is actually picking up their bill. There will be complaints following this post from all manner of the oppressed, the leagues of offended, droves of indignants all claiming (literally) to be put upon. There will be spat out venomous shouts of "typical Tory" from those contemptuous specimens that sang their delight at the demise of Margaret Thatcher. They will click away like fury to "like" each others' professing of _really caring for everyone_ and claiming that Conservatism is in fact Satanism. They will back up each others' fictional figures that show that in fact Labour were really good at looking after the country and that everything including the wet weather is down to Cameron and Osbourne. They will attack capitalism as evil whilst greedily taking from the pot it produces and demanding more. They will all though have to accept at least one thing from this ..........

............... you've got at least five more years of a Conservative government, so get that up you! :Finger


----------



## silvi

Magnus said:


> Oh happy day
> 
> Great result for the country. Best possible outcome all 'round.
> We can now devolve some power to the lunatic nationalistic Scots and bring in English votes for English laws so they aren't able to hold us to ransom over every possible amendment amendment.
> We can look at scrapping the Barnett formula and prevent the Welsh from trying to grasp even more through the same system.
> Small businesses won't have to suffer unworkable tinkering by the anti-commercial socialist halfwits and they will also now avoid Labour's inevitable increases in Corporation Tax. This, along with the IMF's assessment of our resurgent economy, will see our stock in the world continue to rise.
> There will be no more having to look at Ed Balls' stupid fat face as he makes childish and wholly inaccurate gesticulations about a flat-lined economy (shame his thieving cow of a wife remains in place to stare wildly and spout her bile) and that gormless geek Miliband has gone now too, brilliant!
> No more having to shoehorn idiotic Liberals into low relevance roles to keep them from crying into their muesli, no more Vince Cable changing his mind over business and finance strategy every two minutes depending on who he was talking to and no more Douglas Alexander smirking away on Question Time like some dirty-minded pubescent schoolboy who has discovered a hole in his pocket lining.
> Most of all though I love the fact that the Tory haters are furious. Oh yes, those ovine Labour strongholds where political opinion is inherited rather than considered and where commercial ambition is thought of as evil, will be outraged that their fatuous bleating has been proven to be the whining of a minority. They'll be incandescent that when push came to shove most people disagreed with them. They'll be disappointed to discover that Labour's predilection for getting it totally wrong on the economy has come back to bite them on their collective idiotic arses.
> 
> Of course, on here, I will be in the wrong; I am a heterosexual married man who has invested his time, money and efforts in running a business and providing well-paid employment at some significant financial risk to myself. On occasions I have found this forum to be populated by a loud minority of "cat ladies" and people with exaggerated complaints that have given them an ill-deserved income, the hard done to, the misunderstood and the socialist theorists with no care for the reality of business or who is actually picking up their bill. There will be complaints following this post from all manner of the oppressed, the leagues of offended, droves of indignants all claiming (literally) to be put upon. There will be spat out venomous shouts of "typical Tory" from those contemptuous specimens that sang their delight at the demise of Margaret Thatcher. They will click away like fury to "like" each others' professing of _really caring for everyone_ and claiming that Conservatism is in fact Satanism. They will back up each others' fictional figures that show that in fact Labour were really good at looking after the country and that everything including the wet weather is down to Cameron and Osbourne. They will attack capitalism as evil whilst greedily taking from the pot it produces and demanding more. They will all though have to accept at least one thing from this ..........
> 
> ............... you've got at least five more years of a Conservative government, so get that up you! :Finger


I bet you feel so much better now you've got that off your manly, heterosexual chest.
Now.... breath......


----------



## JANICE199

Magnus said:


> Oh happy day
> 
> Great result for the country. Best possible outcome all 'round.
> We can now devolve some power to the lunatic nationalistic Scots and bring in English votes for English laws so they aren't able to hold us to ransom over every possible amendment amendment.
> We can look at scrapping the Barnett formula and prevent the Welsh from trying to grasp even more through the same system.
> Small businesses won't have to suffer unworkable tinkering by the anti-commercial socialist halfwits and they will also now avoid Labour's inevitable increases in Corporation Tax. This, along with the IMF's assessment of our resurgent economy, will see our stock in the world continue to rise.
> There will be no more having to look at Ed Balls' stupid fat face as he makes childish and wholly inaccurate gesticulations about a flat-lined economy (shame his thieving cow of a wife remains in place to stare wildly and spout her bile) and that gormless geek Miliband has gone now too, brilliant!
> No more having to shoehorn idiotic Liberals into low relevance roles to keep them from crying into their muesli, no more Vince Cable changing his mind over business and finance strategy every two minutes depending on who he was talking to and no more Douglas Alexander smirking away on Question Time like some dirty-minded pubescent schoolboy who has discovered a hole in his pocket lining.
> Most of all though I love the fact that the Tory haters are furious. Oh yes, those ovine Labour strongholds where political opinion is inherited rather than considered and where commercial ambition is thought of as evil, will be outraged that their fatuous bleating has been proven to be the whining of a minority. They'll be incandescent that when push came to shove most people disagreed with them. They'll be disappointed to discover that Labour's predilection for getting it totally wrong on the economy has come back to bite them on their collective idiotic arses.
> 
> Of course, on here, I will be in the wrong; I am a heterosexual married man who has invested his time, money and efforts in running a business and providing well-paid employment at some significant financial risk to myself. On occasions I have found this forum to be populated by a loud minority of "cat ladies" and people with exaggerated complaints that have given them an ill-deserved income, the hard done to, the misunderstood and the socialist theorists with no care for the reality of business or who is actually picking up their bill. There will be complaints following this post from all manner of the oppressed, the leagues of offended, droves of indignants all claiming (literally) to be put upon. There will be spat out venomous shouts of "typical Tory" from those contemptuous specimens that sang their delight at the demise of Margaret Thatcher. They will click away like fury to "like" each others' professing of _really caring for everyone_ and claiming that Conservatism is in fact Satanism. They will back up each others' fictional figures that show that in fact Labour were really good at looking after the country and that everything including the wet weather is down to Cameron and Osbourne. They will attack capitalism as evil whilst greedily taking from the pot it produces and demanding more. They will all though have to accept at least one thing from this ..........
> 
> ............... you've got at least five more years of a Conservative government, so get that up you! :Finger


*Haha! well you have just reminded me why i would never vote tory. Talk about over the top. Cameron is worthy of your vote.*


----------



## emmaviolet

negative creep said:


> Although I'm happy with the result it's a shame that people from all sides use personal attacks on those who voted for someone else - someone on another forum I used even claimed anyone who voted Tory was a thinly veiled fascist
> 
> In other news our local Labour candidate didn't even bother to turn up for the vote and plays the race card now he's lost
> 
> http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Ele...date-bemoans/story-26464621-detail/story.html


This election has been more emotionally charged and I believe it's because those who are anti conservatives know what's going to happen and know how extreme it's about to be.

I am really het up about it this time, other times I have voted but not cared as much and we have always been a torie family until the last election.
Now I see them for what they are as opposed to what they say.

It sounds extreme but I truly believe that the next time someone takes their life because their benefits have stopped and they are disabled, not only do the conservatives have blood on their hands, but everyone who voted for them too. Likewise the blood of the badgers and foxes when that comes back in too.
It may sound extreme, but I wouldn't be able to look in the mirror had I voted for a party that wants to strip the poor and leave them in a gutter and enhance the wealthy. It's my opinion and it may sound extreme to some, but I think you should think of society as a whole, not if you will gain a few quid financially (which I bet most who voted for them won't anyway, just wait!).


----------



## MoggyBaby

Jesthar said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Why is it that after reading this thread, the only real conclusion I have drawn is that as I was unable to find a party I agreed with 100% with policy wise, I was wrong to vote?


I very much doubt any one agrees 100% with the party they vote for. Most of the time, if you're lucky, you'll get about 75% agreement. This time around, for a great many people, it was about 50% agreement.

At the end of the day you either vote for the party that is right for you or a party that sits at ease on your conscience. This time, I voted with my conscience. Didn't get me anywhere but at least I can sleep at night knowing I tried to put country before self.


----------



## JANICE199

emmaviolet said:


> This election has been more emotionally charged and I believe it's because those who are anti conservatives know what's going to happen and know how extreme it's about to be.
> 
> I am really het up about it this time, other times I have voted but not cared aas much and we have always been a torie family until the last election.
> Now I see them for what they are as opposed to what they say.
> 
> It sounds extreme but I truly believe that the next time someone takes their life because their benefits have stopped and they are disabled, not only do the conservatives have blood on their hands, but everyone who voted for them too. Likewise the blood of the badgers and foxes when that comes back in too.
> It may sound extreme, but I wouldn't be able to look in the mirror had I voted for a party that wants to strip the poor and leave them in a gutter and enhance the wealthy. It's my opinion and it may sound extreme to some, but I think you should think of society as a whole, not if you will gain a few quid financially (which I bet most who voted for them won't anyway, just wait!).


*It isn't extreme, it's the truth. But people do not like to hear the truth, so beware of the backlash.*


----------



## Pawscrossed

JANICE199 said:


> *I believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion. It isn't all down to voting, imho. If i have/could change the way one person thought, through what i write, i feel i have contributed.*


So you believe that 34% of the population who didn't vote would have made no difference whatsoever?


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> sigh. yes they would ofc have you beleive that anarchy is just a romantic dream. because they want to keep their power. dont beleive everything thats drilled into your head by the establishment.


I was brought up behind Iron Curtain...our parents from day go building us resistance to the system, then underground...not just armchair warriors...
so what would you like Baader Meinhoff style? Boko Haram? Look in places where law and gov does not reach: Asian parts of Russia, South America...Africa and so on...for there always be desire for power and simple greed...winning over those peaceful ,cooperative pacifistic tribes who love and share...life in hippy camp was good...but impossible if we had not have hell Angels around.. I am afraid..


----------



## JANICE199

Pawscrossed said:


> So you believe that 34% of the population who didn't vote would have made no difference whatsoever?


*More to the point, why do YOU think, people like me don't vote?*


----------



## havoc

_Of course, on here, I will be in the wrong; I am a heterosexual married man who has invested his time, money and efforts in running a business and providing well-paid employment at some significant financial risk to myself. On occasions I have found this forum to be populated by a loud minority of "cat ladies"_
Er, excuse me. I'm a heterosexual married woman who has invested time, money and efforts in running more than one business and providing well paid employment at some significant financial risk to myself *and* happens to be one of those "cat ladies". You can be both you know.


----------



## silvi

LinznMilly said:


> Maybe those who voted UKIP voted because they believed the media hysteria surrounding immigration and "foreigners", perhaps not realising that, behind the scenes, UKIP go much, much further than thinly-veiled racism. Maybe they genuinely thought UKIP offered a real alternative to Tories or Labour.





rona said:


> Or maybe they looked beyond the hype


And saw that the racism, homophobia and misogyny was not a smear but very real and they endorsed it?

If so, then I really do fear for young people growing up here


----------



## MoggyBaby

JANICE199 said:


> *More to the point, why do YOU think, people like me don't vote?*


In this case, because you were too late to register your vote!!!


----------



## shetlandlover

JANICE199 said:


> *More to the point, why do YOU think, people like me don't vote?*


You can attempt to make a difference by voting.

Since the age I was legal to vote I have voted.


----------



## porps

Pawscrossed said:


> So you believe that 34% of the population who didn't vote would have made no difference whatsoever?


it makes no difference whatsover yes. when the choices are an orange, another orange, and another orange.. no matter how many people vote you're gonna get an orange.


----------



## Magnus

JANICE199 said:


> *Haha! well you have just reminded me why i would never vote tory. Talk about over the top. Cameron is worthy of your vote.*


And there it is :Yawn

*5 more years. :Kiss*


----------



## Magnus

havoc said:


> _Of course, on here, I will be in the wrong; I am a heterosexual married man who has invested his time, money and efforts in running a business and providing well-paid employment at some significant financial risk to myself. On occasions I have found this forum to be populated by a loud minority of "cat ladies"_
> Er, excuse me. I'm a heterosexual married woman who has invested time, money and efforts in running more than one business and providing well paid employment at some significant financial risk to myself *and* happens to be one of those "cat ladies". You can be both you know.


I think then perhaps you're not one of THOSE "cat ladies", it sounds to me as though you're a lady who has a cat. Huge difference.


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> it makes no difference whatsover yes. when the choices are an orange, another orange, and another orange.. no matter how many people vote you're gonna get an orange.


some oranges are more equal than others, hun....

and some just pretend , but really are lemons...some are plain rotten, full of worms... I pick my oranges very carefully indeed..

and do you think squashing al oranges will make anything else but lots of orange juice?


----------



## JANICE199

Magnus said:


> And there it is :Yawn
> 
> *5 more years. :Kiss*


*Typical Tory response, no substance.:Yawnompus*


----------



## soulful dog

Lurcherlad said:


> I'm glad they couldn't. Just because she came across really well doesn't mean she will do right when it comes to it. She may be a good public speaker - that means diddly squat really, surely? Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> TBH given the fact that the majority of Scottish voters do not want to leave the UK, I'm surprised that so many of them voted SNP into so many seats, giving them so much power. I wonder if they (we) may live to regret it?


I take it you didn't read my post about the SNP a couple of pages back. So many people voted SNP because of their policies on austerity, NHS, trident etc, etc and because they have lost faith in Labour (edited to add: if you look at Labours economic policies for example, the end result is very similar to what you'd get with the Conservatives). And actions do speak louder than words, which is why the fact they have shown that they can form a credible government (in the Scottish Parliament) and actually do a pretty good job while in government is a big reason why so many voted for them too.

It had almost nothing to do with independence. That was the referendum, this was the general election. There will have been thousands of people who voted for SNP yesterday who don't really want independence, they want a credible socially democratic voice to speak for them, and that's clearly no longer Labour, and hasn't been for quite some time.


----------



## emmaviolet

JANICE199 said:


> *It isn't extreme, it's the truth. But people do not like to hear the truth, so beware of the backlash.*


Thanks, it's what I really believe.
I may not have got the result I wanted, but I can look in the mirror with my choice and the next time there's an article about someone who has killed themselves because of the cuts I can only feel sympathy and no guilt.

To those who don't believe it, I have a lot of chronic conditions, thankfully I don't rely on the government, but I am a member of pain management groups and forums, there are a number of members who have stashed away their high dose pain meds for the day their benefits are cut and they cannot afford to live.
This is the reality of the conservatives.


----------



## Fluffster

No matter what you think of the result, we can all enjoy a bit of Al Murray

http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/fun/news/...gel-farages-election-defeat-is-priceless.html


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Magnus said:


> Oh happy day
> 
> Great result for the country. Best possible outcome all 'round.
> We can now devolve some power to the lunatic nationalistic Scots and bring in English votes for English laws so they aren't able to hold us to ransom over every possible amendment amendment.
> We can look at scrapping the Barnett formula and prevent the Welsh from trying to grasp even more through the same system.
> Small businesses won't have to suffer unworkable tinkering by the anti-commercial socialist halfwits and they will also now avoid Labour's inevitable increases in Corporation Tax. This, along with the IMF's assessment of our resurgent economy, will see our stock in the world continue to rise.
> There will be no more having to look at Ed Balls' stupid fat face as he makes childish and wholly inaccurate gesticulations about a flat-lined economy (shame his thieving cow of a wife remains in place to stare wildly and spout her bile) and that gormless geek Miliband has gone now too, brilliant!
> No more having to shoehorn idiotic Liberals into low relevance roles to keep them from crying into their muesli, no more Vince Cable changing his mind over business and finance strategy every two minutes depending on who he was talking to and no more Douglas Alexander smirking away on Question Time like some dirty-minded pubescent schoolboy who has discovered a hole in his pocket lining.
> Most of all though I love the fact that the Tory haters are furious. Oh yes, those ovine Labour strongholds where political opinion is inherited rather than considered and where commercial ambition is thought of as evil, will be outraged that their fatuous bleating has been proven to be the whining of a minority. They'll be incandescent that when push came to shove most people disagreed with them. They'll be disappointed to discover that Labour's predilection for getting it totally wrong on the economy has come back to bite them on their collective idiotic arses.
> 
> Of course, on here, I will be in the wrong; I am a heterosexual married man who has invested his time, money and efforts in running a business and providing well-paid employment at some significant financial risk to myself. On occasions I have found this forum to be populated by a loud minority of "cat ladies" and people with exaggerated complaints that have given them an ill-deserved income, the hard done to, the misunderstood and the socialist theorists with no care for the reality of business or who is actually picking up their bill. There will be complaints following this post from all manner of the oppressed, the leagues of offended, droves of indignants all claiming (literally) to be put upon. There will be spat out venomous shouts of "typical Tory" from those contemptuous specimens that sang their delight at the demise of Margaret Thatcher. They will click away like fury to "like" each others' professing of _really caring for everyone_ and claiming that Conservatism is in fact Satanism. They will back up each others' fictional figures that show that in fact Labour were really good at looking after the country and that everything including the wet weather is down to Cameron and Osbourne. They will attack capitalism as evil whilst greedily taking from the pot it produces and demanding more. They will all though have to accept at least one thing from this ..........
> 
> ............... you've got at least five more years of a Conservative government, so get that up you! :Finger


What a load of vitriolic tosh :Shamefullyembarrased:Shamefullyembarrased Why do you think we are interested in your sexuality exactly? I run a business too and I voted Conservative too. However I gain no pleasure from rubbing salt into other peoples wounds and preening like a cockerel. A lot of people have lost their jobs and incomes today and whilst I am pleased with the result because I think it is the right result I see no need to call any one lunatics, idiotic or make silly school boy jokes about holes in pocket linings. So from me to you :Mooning and :Finger


----------



## emmaviolet

This is a great article for those who voted the conservatives as labour had messed it up and fell into the media trap without really reading about what goes on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-unthinking.html?_r=0


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry Noush you can post as many opinions from celebs as you like, the public didn't buy it. I never read such a load of tosh as that tweet above. Does she seriously expect us to believe that all benefts will be stopped all NHS hospitals will be sold with no free health care? I understand feelings are running high and people are licking their wounds but seriously.


That link has nothing to do with any celebrity RPH. And the ones that do are being shared by the people within the medical profession & the NHA Party - & these are the ones I trust to tell the truth about what is happening as well- NOT the politicians.

Our NHS will be just a brand name, no longer free at the point of access, no longer there for everyone. A wasteful, poor quality service (unless you can afford the very best health insurance), modelled on the American health service. A service where 1 in 5 have no access to care & where many people are bankrupted trying to pay for it. The Health & welfare act has removed duty to provide care now. I predict lots of hospital closures - with the land sold off to developers, to make a quick buck. The tories had no right to steal our NHS & that is just what they have been stealthily doing & will continue to do. The bloated corpse of corporate America will be rubbing her hands in anticipation at this & the TTIP deal will be the final nail in the coffin not only for our NHS, but for our environment. Animal welfare standards will be appalling as well .

Benefits for thousands of people have already stopped, why do you think so many are relying on foodbanks, living in abject poverty, homeless -, dead?

People are terrified & well I feel, sick inside tbh. I could break my heart for our badgers, foxes & wildlife in general. Plus the window to combat climate change is rapidly closing. I live in dread for my children & the natural world. My children are my life, the best thing that has happened to me, but I'm so worried for the bleak future they will have to face that I wish they had never been born. I hope they move abroad to a better country than the one we are becoming.

.



Lurcherlad said:


> I'm glad they couldn't. Just because she came across really well doesn't mean she will do right when it comes to it. She may be a good public speaker - that means diddly squat really, surely? Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> TBH given the fact that the majority of Scottish voters do not want to leave the UK, I'm surprised that so many of them voted SNP into so many seats, giving them so much power. I wonder if they (we) may live to regret it?


The Scottish people have every right to be heard via the SNP. The SNP has become a progressive party, that opposes flaming austerity & strongly opposed to NHS privatisation & fracking. It could have been a coalition of hope.


----------



## Colliebarmy

Well all the stories, tales and scaremongering attempts against the Tories did little in the end

The people have spoken

and a good turnout, Cammie increased the number of seats whilst in office, the 1st time a PM has done that since Thatcher after the Falklands, obviously the voting population has far more sense than many gave them credit to have


----------



## Magnus

JANICE199 said:


> *Typical Tory response, no substance.:Yawnompus*


"Typical Tory...." 

I love it that you're hacked off with the election result. Absolutely love it. 
Your comments are making me very happy too, please keep 'em coming.

* 5 more years* :Kiss


----------



## tinaK

I am very scared about what is going to happen to services and to benefits for those who genuinely can't work


----------



## Ang2

So, Spellweaver, let me ask you a question.

If UKIP were the only party that would ban fox hunting and the badger cull - would you have voted for them? Because that's exactly what you are saying to others. Vote for the animal welfare party, and f*ck everything else!


----------



## shetlandlover

emmaviolet said:


> Thanks, it's what I really believe.
> I may not have got the result I wanted, but I can look in the mirror with my choice and the next time there's an article about someone who has killed themselves because of the cuts I can only feel sympathy and no guilt.
> .


I really don't want to bite but I will....you think everyone who voted Conservative should feel guilt then?


----------



## JANICE199

Magnus said:


> "Typical Tory...."
> 
> I love it that you're hacked off with the election result. Absolutely love it.
> Your comments are making me very happy too, please keep 'em coming.
> 
> * 5 more years* :Kiss


*Hacked off? Why do you think that? I am very happy for you. If you like to see people and the country suffer, then that surely says a lot more about you than me. Enjoy your 5 mins of fame.... oops sorry 5 years.:Hilarious*


----------



## havoc

I think then perhaps you're not one of THOSE "cat ladies", it sounds to me as though you're a lady who has a cat.

Not 'a' cat, nine cats! You'd definitely regard me as one of 'those' cat ladies just to look at me. I'm not quite sure how the other side of my life would be judged on here. On one hand I am one of the disgusting 'rich' who made money from private enterprise whilst on the other I created jobs and wealth which was shared. You don't get one side without the other.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> That link has nothing to do with any celebrity RPH. And the ones that do are being shared by the people within the medical profession & the NHA Party - & these are the ones I trust to tell the truth about what is happening as well- NOT the politicians.
> 
> Our NHS will be just a brand name, no longer free at the point of access, no longer there for everyone. A wasteful, poor quality service (unless you can afford the very best health insurance), modelled on the American health service. A service where 1 in 5 have no access to care & where many people are bankrupted trying to pay for it. The Health & welfare act has removed duty to provide care now. I predict lots of hospital closures - with the land sold off to developers, to make a quick buck. The tories had no right to steal our NHS & that is just what they have been stealthily doing & will continue to do. The bloated corpse of corporate America will be rubbing her hands in anticipation at this & the TTIP deal will be the final nail in the coffin not only for our NHS, but for our environment. Animal welfare standards will be appalling as well .
> 
> Benefits for thousands of people have already stopped, why do you think so many are relying on foodbanks, living in abject poverty, homeless -, dead?
> 
> People are terrified & well I feel, sick inside tbh. I could break my heart for our badgers, foxes & wildlife in general. Plus the window to combat climate change is rapidly closing. I live in dread for my children & the natural world. My children are my life, the best thing that has happened to me, but I'm so worried for the bleak future they will have to face that I wish they had never been born. I hope they move abroad to a better country than the one we are becoming.
> 
> .
> 
> The Scottish people have every right to be heard via the SNP. The SNP has become a progressive party, that opposes flaming austerity & strongly opposed to NHS privatisation & fracking. It could have been a coalition of hope.


I'm really sorry you feel like that but I do think in a few days time when you have had time to regroup and start planning for the future you will see things differently and feel less despondent. I know you feel passionately about things and I admire your passion. I'm old enough to have lived through the Winter of Discontent when bodies literally were piled up and rubbish covered our streets - we were held to ransom by the unions and again under labour remember the tanker drivers bringing the country to a standstill. I simply do not believe that there will be no healthcare free at the point of access in this country although I do think its time for some changes to be made in how we fund it. Just out of interest which country do you think are so much better than ours?


----------



## Magnus

rottiepointerhouse said:


> What a load of vitriolic tosh :Shamefullyembarrased:Shamefullyembarrased Why do you think we are interested in your sexuality exactly? I run a business too and I voted Conservative too. However I gain no pleasure from rubbing salt into other peoples wounds and preening like a cockerel. A lot of people have lost their jobs and incomes today and whilst I am pleased with the result because I think it is the right result I see no need to call any one lunatics, idiotic or make silly school boy jokes about holes in pocket linings. So from me to you :Mooning and :Finger


Then go and read the bile and venomous shite that some on here came out with over Maggie's death and after you have you can borrow some salt and start rubbing.
I'm happy that they're miserable over this result, they deserve to be.

Oh, and from me back to you :Finger


----------



## emmaviolet

shetlandlover said:


> I really don't want to bite but I will....you think everyone who voted Conservative should feel guilt then?


Yes, why shouldn't they? especially now, the articles about it have been in the news, so people know it's happening. I truly believe it, the people who voted them in have blood on their hands when they kill themselves, they asked for this government.
By voting conservatives you vote for the party that does that to people, I would think people with a conscious wouldn't vote for them.


----------



## JANICE199

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm really sorry you feel like that but I do think in a few days time when you have had time to regroup and start planning for the future you will see things differently and feel less despondent. I know you feel passionately about things and I admire your passion. I'm old enough to have lived through the Winter of Discontent when bodies literally were piled up and rubbish covered our streets - we were held to ransom by the unions and again under labour remember the tanker drivers bringing the country to a standstill. I simply do not believe that there will be no healthcare free at the point of access in this country although I do think its time for some changes to be made in how we fund it. Just out of interest which country do you think are so much better than ours?


*I am old enough too to remember those days. And i would welcome them back. We at least knew where we stood.*


----------



## Magnus

JANICE199 said:


> *Hacked off? Why do you think that? I am very happy for you. If you like to see people and the country suffer, then that surely says a lot more about you than me. Enjoy your 5 mins of fame.... oops sorry 5 years.:Hilarious*


I like to see the country do well and that rarely means having a Labour government.
Fame?!! This is a pet forum you know, not CNN.

You do sound hacked off though.


----------



## Magnus

emmaviolet said:


> Yes, why shouldn't they? especially now, the articles about it have been in the news, so people know it's happening. I truly believe it, the people who voted them in have blood on their hands when they kill themselves, they asked for this government.
> By voting conservatives you vote for the party that does that to people, I would think people with a conscious wouldn't vote for them.


What a load of ludicrous shite. 
*5 Years. *


----------



## Dogloverlou

Magnus said:


> Then go and read the bile and venomous shite that some on here came out with over Maggie's death and after you have you can borrow some salt and start rubbing.
> I'm happy that they're miserable over this result, they deserve to be.
> 
> Oh, and from me back to you :Finger


What the hell?

Glad politics goes over my head with attitudes like this.


----------



## emmaviolet

Magnus said:


> What a load of ludicrous shite.
> *5 Years. *


Much like your posts then!


----------



## porps

cheekyscrip said:


> and do you think squashing al oranges will make anything else but lots of orange juice?


it will make space for some apples.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Magnus said:


> Then go and read the bile and venomous shite that some on here came out with over Maggie's death and after you have you can borrow some salt and start rubbing.
> I'm happy that they're miserable over this result, they deserve to be.
> 
> Oh, and from me back to you :Finger


I'm sorry that must have been before my time and a quick search doesn't bring anything up. You say you employ people, I do hope you treat them with a bit more understanding and compassion - be careful who you tread on on the way up and all that.


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> it will make space for some apples.


I remember communism..we had only one apple...everyone had to go to vote, for that apple...and we never got any ...just the rotten core...the rest was sent to Big Brother who took all apples ...

apple swere red...but only on the outside..inside they were white...


----------



## Pointermum

emmaviolet said:


> Yes, why shouldn't they? especially now, the articles about it have been in the news, so people know it's happening. I truly believe it, the people who voted them in have blood on their hands when they kill themselves, they asked for this government.
> By voting conservatives you vote for the party that does that to people, I would think people with a conscious wouldn't vote for them.


Seriously  people who have worked hard (in most cases) to earn what they have, who want a stable economy for our kids futures, we have blood on our hands. How about looking at the "don't want to works" who have bled the benefit system dry , should there no be a cap on rents the system is expected to pay, they should be able to have a take home amount of benefit way into the 50/60k mark ?? it had to stop and end somewhere , thank those who took the piss not those who try to get on in life 

In before the tax loop holes argument and blame the bankers.


----------



## porps

Magnus said:


> I'm happy that they're miserable


No wonder you vote tory then. if the misery of others makes you happy it's the perfect party for you!


----------



## Dogloverlou

My parent's tend to say 'Tories only look after their own'.

Aside from the hunting repeal I couldn't really care less what Cameron promises to deliver. But I don't have high hopes for change for the better.


----------



## porps

cheekyscrip said:


> I remember communism..we had only one apple...everyone had to go to vote, for that apple...and we never got any ...just the rotten core...the rest was sent to Big Brother who took all apples ...
> 
> apple swere red...but only on the outside..inside they were white...


and? what are you trying to say? cos it sounds like "we tried something different in the past, it didnt work, so we should never try anything different again"


----------



## porps

Pointermum said:


> Seriously  people who have worked hard (in most cases) to earn what they have, who want a stable economy for our kids futures, we have blood on our hands. How about looking at the "don't want to works" who have bled the benefit system dry , should there no be a cap on rents the system is expected to pay, they should be able to have a take home amount of benefit way into the 50/60k mark ?? it had to stop and end somewhere , thank those who took the piss not those who try to get on in life
> 
> In before the tax loop holes argument and blame the bankers.


yes, you have blood on your hands. whether you choose to face that fact or not it remains a fact. At least have the strength of conviction to say "i voted tory cos i dont care about less well off people or animals".


----------



## canuckjill

I know nothing about UK Politics really, but m glad most of you voted. We just had a Provincial vote and it didn't go the way I wanted but now I just pray for the next 4 years that wise choices are made. I decided with not being in sync with any of the parties I went with the individual that I knew had represented me as a constituent the best and had helped when needed.... I would have preferred a Minority over a Majority


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

emmaviolet said:


> Yes, why shouldn't they? especially now, the articles about it have been in the news, so people know it's happening. I truly believe it, the people who voted them in have blood on their hands when they kill themselves, they asked for this government.
> By voting conservatives you vote for the party that does that to people, I would think people with a conscious wouldn't vote for them.


So who was in power when all those people died at Mid Staffs? I know you are hurting but throwing those sorts of statements around really won't help.


----------



## Mr Gizmo

porps said:


>


Where have I stated that I voted them in ?

ETA:-Theres a long delay between my posts because I'm at work.


----------



## Pointermum

porps said:


> yes, you have blood on your hands. whether you choose to face that fact or not it remains a fact. At least have the strength of conviction to say "i voted tory cos i dont care about less well off people or animals".


I'll be sure to lose sleep over it tonight  :Yawn


----------



## porps

sorry gizmo it wasnt directed at you or anyone in particular, but at everyone who says things like "if you dont vote, you cant moan". If it followed your post it was purely coincidence


----------



## Colliebarmy

I see the myths and legends carry on....

I hate sore losers


----------



## porps

Pointermum said:


> I'll be sure to lose sleep over it tonight  :Yawn


No, ofc you wont. you're a tory. The only thing that makes tories lose sleep is money.


----------



## Colliebarmy

porps said:


> yes, you have blood on your hands. whether you choose to face that fact or not it remains a fact. At least have the strength of conviction to say "i voted tory cos i dont care about less well off people or animals".


11,334,920 voted Tory......are they all as you state above?

Its about who can run the country, good job the Libyans didnt get a postal vote int it...WMD? what WMD? Banks? yeah, give em the money....


----------



## porps

Colliebarmy said:


> 11,334,920 voted Tory......are they all as you state above?


Yes.


----------



## Magnus

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm sorry that must have been before my time and a quick search doesn't bring anything up. You say you employ people, I do hope you treat them with a bit more understanding and compassion - be careful who you tread on on the way up and all that.


Certainly do. The people I employ are good decent people with a work ethic and appreciation of the sacrifices their employers have made in order to preserve all of our jobs. 
As much as I despise the Balls, Coopers, Blairs etc. I would not trumpet their deaths as good news or want to dance on their graves, there are some on here that took that line when Lady Thatcher passed away. They are beneath contempt.


----------



## Pointermum

.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

porps said:


> No, ofc you wont. you're a tory. The only thing that makes tories lose sleep is money.


You are actually right there Porps, I do lose sleep over money because believe it or not even Tories have to pay their bills, food, heating, mortgage costs just the same whoever you vote for. The main thing I lose sleep over though is how the hell I raise the money I have to pay in tax every year, especially when I have to make an up front payment for next year too. I don't begrudge paying taxes to help the vulnerable and sick and I do my bit from a charity point of view - some of us have a heart too.


----------



## Dogloverlou

Pointermum said:


> I've been Tory i've been Labour, I've had no money and i've had money, I want to see the Country thriving ..... unfortunately I may have been swayed by my sister getting a 5 bed house and 4 horses why all on benefit, while both my husband and I worked to get a 3 bed terraced house, to me that was a broken system !


What about those who genuinely can't work though and are not abusing the system. Seems they're losing out too and no one gives a damn.


----------



## emmaviolet

Pointermum said:


> Seriously  people who have worked hard (in most cases) to earn what they have, who want a stable economy for our kids futures, we have blood on our hands. How about looking at the "don't want to works" who have bled the benefit system dry , should there no be a cap on rents the system is expected to pay, they should be able to have a take home amount of benefit way into the 50/60k mark ?? it had to stop and end somewhere , thank those who took the piss not those who try to get on in life
> 
> In before the tax loop holes argument and blame the bankers.


I don't understand the eye roll really. If you vote for the people who do this then you in part are responsible. 
I don't believe you or anyone is securing any child's future. If your child graduates from college or uni but cannot find a job they will be entitled to no help at all from the state. Likewise if a child is in an abusive family, they will have no escape as they will not help with housing or give them any benefit.

So because it has to stop somewhere it should stop for even those who cannot move to work or are too mentally ill to?



rottiepointerhouse said:


> So who was in power when all those people died at Mid Staffs? I know you are hurting but throwing those sorts of statements around really won't help.


I'm not actually hurting, I just fear for those who cannot defend themselves, which I think anyone with empathy would.

Mid staff mistakes were made, as they have been in numerous things from the beginning of time, it's not quite the same as deliberately making people who are already the bottom of society destitute.

I suppose because I have heard so many accounts of it, people storing up their dangerous drugs for that day, well it leaves an imprint.

But the fact remains that if you vote for a party who are cruel to the sick, weak and animals then you have to take responsibility. If you helped get them in it's your fault when things happen. They've already shown they will do it, it's not like being blind-sighted by it out of the blue. People knew what they were voting for in the conservatives.

If it doesn't sit well with the voter then maybe they should have made a different choice.


----------



## Dogloverlou

emmaviolet said:


> But the fact remains that if you vote for a party who are cruel to the sick, weak and animals then you have to take responsibility. If you helped get them in it's your fault when things happen. They've already shown they will do it, it's not like being blind-sighted by it out of the blue. People knew what they were voting for in the conservatives.
> 
> If it doesn't sit well with the voter then maybe they should have made a different choice.


That's what I was wondering earlier to be honest. I understand people voting for any party that best represents their views, but as a forum of animal lovers I am a little surprised people would choose to risk the chance of the hunting act being repealed. How many of those same people would then be on here up in arms at how awful hunting is?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Pointermum said:


> I've been Tory i've been Labour, I've had no money and i've had money, I want to see the Country thriving ..... unfortunately I may have been swayed by my sister getting a 5 bed house and 4 horses why all on benefit, while both my husband and I worked to get a 3 bed terraced house, to me that was a broken system !


Same here, in my younger days I was a member of the Militant Tendency and donated a regular amount from my wages. I've been labour and conservative and changed my mind between the two over the years. We started out in a one bed flat in London when we got married with sheets at the windows because we couldn't afford curtains and no heating. The thing with labour is they appear to want to penalise anyone with aspiration who trys to get on. Of course we should look after the vulnerable but someone has to make the money to pay for it.


----------



## emmaviolet

Pointermum said:


> I'll be sure to lose sleep over it tonight  :Yawn


I see your empathic with the plight of the sick and the weak then. A lot of those people will be loosing sleep tonight though sadly.


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> The thing with labour is they appear to want to penalise anyone with aspiration who trys to get on. Of course we should look after the vulnerable but someone has to make the money to pay for it.


You see this is partly the problem.
Labour made it clear that their emphasis was on _working_ families. It was stated again and again and again....
Yes, they also wanted to save and improve the welfare state because they know that anyone can fall on hard times, regardless of how hard they have worked in the past.
The same reasoning applies to wanting to save the NHS.

But at their heart (and in their manifesto) they are a party for workers, and hard workers at that.

Why are people so blind to this fact?


----------



## Pointermum

Dogloverlou said:


> What about those who genuinely can't work though and are not abusing the system. Seems they're losing out too and no one gives a damn.


I do have sympathy for those who are genuine but people always like to lame the blame on the "rich" Tories and tax evading/bankers , never on those who are in the same system milking it for everything. 


emmaviolet said:


> I
> I suppose because I have heard so many accounts of it, people storing up their dangerous drugs for that day, well it leaves an imprint.


Do you not think that there are people who take their lives because of the pressure put on them by their high flying jobs, their need to provide for the family and so on , there will always be people who feel there is no other way out.


----------



## emmaviolet

Pointermum said:


> I've been Tory i've been Labour, I've had no money and i've had money, I want to see the Country thriving ..... unfortunately I may have been swayed by my sister getting a 5 bed house and 4 horses why all on benefit, while both my husband and I worked to get a 3 bed terraced house, to me that was a broken system !


Oh dear, so your sister being happy seems to spurn you into being cruel and uncaring about those who are ill and in need.

Did she not get the house under this government anyway?


----------



## shetlandlover

Hang on...so far all I've seen is people attacking Conservative voters.

I've not seen any conservative voters attacking anyone on their votes. 

Seriously....


----------



## LinznMilly

Pointermum said:


> Seriously  people who have worked hard (in most cases) to earn what they have, who want a stable economy for our kids futures, we have blood on our hands. How about looking at the "don't want to works" who have bled the benefit system dry , should there no be a cap on rents the system is expected to pay, they should be able to have a take home amount of benefit way into the 50/60k mark ?? it had to stop and end somewhere , thank those who took the piss not those who try to get on in life
> 
> In before the tax loop holes argument and blame the bankers.


So, in order to punish the few, it's OK for those who are genuinely disabled, sick, unable to work, to suffer, to be unable to afford to pay for their families, and with little to no chance of getting jobs because - like an unpalatable truth, disability discrimination still exists? It shouldn't, but it does. Should they be forced into poverty just so the Tories can pat themselves on the back and say "we've cut benefits even more?" Should they be forced to rely on food and clothes banks because they can't afford anything else?

What if, because of my ongoing skin problems, I'm forced to give up work? Does that make me a "don't-want-to-work?" I'm doing everything I can to keep hold of a job I care about, but the stress of balancing work, housework and my pets takes a toll on my health I've already been forced to cut my hours to the bare minimum my company allows. If I'm forced to take anymore time off, I'm faced with the difficult decision whether to carry on trying, or admit defeat and desperately try for benefits I won't receive.



porps said:


> sorry gizmo it wasnt directed at you or anyone in particular, but at everyone who says things like "if you dont vote, you cant moan". If it followed your post it was purely coincidence


If you don't vote, you _can't_ moan. You had the chance to use your voice and you chose not to. Likewise, if you vote for the Tories, you can't moan if that vote comes and stabs you in the back in the next 5 years. But those of us who voted against the grain - we have every right to moan because we haven't chosen this government. It's forced upon us. Like a Labour win would have been forced upon the Conservatives.



Colliebarmy said:


> I see the myths and legends carry on....
> 
> I hate sore losers


Would you have been any different if it had have been a Labour win?



Magnus said:


> Certainly do. The people I employ are good decent people with a work ethic and appreciation of the sacrifices their employers have made in order to preserve all of our jobs.
> As much as I despise the Balls, Coopers, Blairs etc. I would not trumpet their deaths as good news or want to dance on their graves, there are some on here that took that line when Lady Thatcher passed away. They are beneath contempt.


Care to provide the link to this?


----------



## emmaviolet

Pointermum said:


> Do you not think that there are people who take their lives because of the pressure put on them by their high flying jobs, their need to provide for the family and so on , there will always be people who feel there is no other way out.


Yes, there will always be a reason for it, so why blame the cuts hey? Right I get it, that's the process of how to remove guilt from a vote for it.
Lets pray nothing ever happens to you or your husband or children, hope they are never to sick to work, because it happens to everyone, even people who are fit and well. 
My Grandfather was the most active person ever, had his own string of businesses, but cancer got him and his DLA saved our family a lot more worry.

It's just reminds me of this...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me


----------



## Pointermum

.


----------



## porps

shetlandlover said:


> Hang on...so far all I've seen is people attacking Conservative voters.
> 
> I've not seen any conservative voters attacking anyone on their votes.
> 
> Seriously....


theres a clue for you about the nature of the conservatives in that little observation you made.


----------



## shetlandlover

porps said:


> theres a clue for you about the nature of the conservatives in that little observation you made.


What that they put up with too much shit off people who are being down right nasty?


----------



## Nicky10

shetlandlover said:


> Hang on...so far all I've seen is people attacking Conservative voters.
> 
> I've not seen any conservative voters attacking anyone on their votes.
> 
> Seriously....


I think it says a lot about the Tory voters that they're not stooping to their level and throwing insults back.

Do we not have a fair vote in place where people can vote for who they want anymore? Or do we need to have plenty of quotes from celebrities on hand to back up any opinion?


----------



## silvi

shetlandlover said:


> Hang on...so far all I've seen is people attacking Conservative voters.
> 
> I've not seen any conservative voters attacking anyone on their votes.
> 
> Seriously....


Then I think you haven't read all the posts on this thread.
But can't blame you over that, this is post 471 after all (if I post it on time....)


----------



## emmaviolet

Pointermum said:


> No all 5 kids have been under a Labour government and she got her bigger house just before the bedroom tax started, I have nothing against anyone being happy but why should she get more in life from doing nothing apart from getting pregnant by different men for a living ? That is a broken system.


So she got her house under the conservative/liberal government then. 
TBH it sounds like you do have something against her being happy, mentioning her house, her horses.

Hey, maybe they'll take her house off of her and then she may have to stay in yours, you know we're all in it together, that will be lovely for you all.


----------



## shetlandlover

Nicky10 said:


> I think it says a lot about the Tory voters that they're not stooping to their level and throwing insults back.
> 
> Do we not have a fair vote in place where people can vote for who they want anymore? Or do we need to have plenty of quotes from celebrities on hand to back up any opinion?


I agree with you completely...

We need prop button back.


----------



## Dogloverlou

Pointermum said:


> No all 5 kids have been under a Labour government and she got her bigger house just before the bedroom tax started, I have nothing against anyone being happy but why should she get more in life from doing nothing apart from getting pregnant by different men for a living ? That is a broken system.


Obviously you don't think highly of your sister, but unfortunately the genuine cases of people in need are not being heard and are being classed along with those similar to your sister. Where is the fairness in that? And what's more it's only going to get worse!


----------



## emmaviolet

Nicky10 said:


> I think it says a lot about the Tory voters that they're not stooping to their level and throwing insults back.
> 
> Do we not have a fair vote in place where people can vote for who they want anymore? Or do we need to have plenty of quotes from celebrities on hand to back up any opinion?


Not many insults really.

I wasn't insulting anyone, if you voted for the disabled to be kicked you have to accept you did it and move on and either feel guilt or not. Likewise when all of the animals are slaughtered too, it's not an insult, it's highlighting what you voted for, if you find it insulting maybe you chose the wrong side.


----------



## Colliebarmy

We have a democratic state and voting system, if Labour had won the Conservatives would have to live with it

Now eat some humble pie, grow up and congratulate Cameron

A TORY win on VE day, when another Tory (Winston Churchill) had led us through our darkest times


----------



## Dogloverlou

emmaviolet said:


> Not many insults really.
> 
> I wasn't insulting anyone, if you voted for the disabled to be kicked you have to accept you did it and move on and either feel guilt or not. Likewise when all of the animals are slaughtered too, it's not an insult, it's highlighting what you voted for, if you find it insulting maybe you chose the wrong side.


Exactly. I'd expect those who voted for any party to stand by the choices and plans laid out by said party. Not be insulted or offended when those issues are raised.


----------



## Pointermum

.


----------



## porps

shetlandlover said:


> What that they put up with too much shit off people who are being down right nasty?


No.
That they are evil heartless scum who disgust anyone with an ounce of empathy.


----------



## shetlandlover

emmaviolet said:


> spurn you into being cruel and uncaring about those who are ill and in need.


How is that not an insult?

How does Pointermum voting for who she thinks is the lesser of the evils make her "cruel and uncaring"??


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> and? what are you trying to say? cos it sounds like "we tried something different in the past, it didnt work, so we should never try anything different again"


nope..trying to say we should not repeat the same mistakes... I truly think Walden Two would be lovely...or just do not see our society ready for it...surely leaders of IS think they are trying for something different?

I am grumpy old cynic...sour grapes...


----------



## porps

Colliebarmy said:


> We have a democratic state and voting system, if Labour had won the Conservatives would have to live with it
> 
> Now eat some humble pie, grow up and congratulate Cameron


you live on another planet right? it isnt time to live it with it. it's time to fight it.


----------



## Pointermum

Dogloverlou said:


> Obviously you don't think highly of your sister, but unfortunately the genuine cases of people in need are not being heard and are being classed along with those similar to your sister. Where is the fairness in that? And what's more it's only going to get worse!


No see I do agree those in true need should be protected but blaming the rich the whole time doesn't help. Unfortunately Labour allowed a system for too long to be milked , I don't know how it can be resolved .


----------



## porps

cheekyscrip said:


> nope..trying to say we should not repeat the same mistakes... I truly think Walden Two would be lovely...or just do not see our society ready for it...surely leaders of IS think they are trying for something different?
> 
> I am grumpy old cynic...sour grapes...


we repeat the same mistakes every 5 years.
i agree we shouldn't repeat the same mistakes. thats why i call for anarchy.


----------



## Nicky10

The problem is that attempts to fix the benefits system so only people who truly need it can get it, and I absolutely agree that it needs to be in place, have resulted in people being told they can work when they genuinely can't. There needs to be way more thought put into the criteria.


----------



## Dogloverlou

Pointermum said:


> No see I do agree those in true need should be protected but blaming the rich the whole time doesn't help. Unfortunately Labour allowed a system for too long to be milked , I don't know how it can be resolved to stop people like my sister but help those who truly need support.


You see there needs to be some compromise somewhere where people like your sister are weeded out of the system, but the genuine cases are seen and heard and respected. Unfortunately Cameron doesn't seem to take that view and is threatening to cut benefits even further which will undoubtedly impact those with a genuine need.


----------



## negative creep

Nicky10 said:


> I think it says a lot about the Tory voters that they're not stooping to their level and throwing insults back.
> 
> Do we not have a fair vote in place where people can vote for who they want anymore? Or do we need to have plenty of quotes from celebrities on hand to back up any opinion?


Totally agree - on another forum I use someone is legitimately stating that anyone who voted Tory is a fascist (very appropriate on the anniversary of VE Day). Quite clearly the majority of the country thought they were the right party for the job, and many of them are ordinary working people because you wouldn't win many seats if only the rich voted for you


----------



## emmaviolet

shetlandlover said:


> How is that not an insult?
> 
> How does Pointermum voting for who she thinks is the lesser of the evils make her "cruel and uncaring"??


It's not an insult as she said she wouldn't lose sleep over it, so that's uncaring. If you don't care about the death of the sick and disabled then is that not uncaring? Maybe cruel was my opinion, however hardly an insult and tame compared to what the government will throw at others.

How was it the lesser of evils? Conservatives are always called the nasty party.


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> you live on another planet right? it isnt time to live it with it. it's time to fight it.


fight whom? al who voted/ those who voted Tories?

and if say Greens won? then would you be happy and would not fight? So we are to fight because the party you do not support won? and you know better?
Shall we elect you the Emperor and highest priest of The Universe and then no more voting, no more parties...Let the force be with you!

So...manifesto please!
whom to fight?
why?
who is to benefit if we win?

who is to benefit if we fight?
(wish those who go fighting always asked those questions first?
and small briefing before I pick my battle axe and follow you:
Do you speak Russian?

Are any part of you electronic?

Where have you parked the spaceship?
Is your Mum coming to collect you? (Can she take me too?)


----------



## Nicky10

negative creep said:


> Totally agree - on another forum I use someone is legitimately stating that anyone who voted Tory is a fascist (very appropriate on the anniversary of VE Day). Quite clearly the majority of the country thought they were the right party for the job, and many of them are ordinary working people because you wouldn't win many seats if only the rich voted for you


Like the people that hurl Communist at socialists they have no concept of what those ideologies actually stand for of course. Fascism was always about a hierarchy of races.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

emmaviolet said:


> Not many insults really.
> 
> I wasn't insulting anyone, if you voted for the disabled to be kicked you have to accept you did it and move on and either feel guilt or not. Likewise when all of the animals are slaughtered too, it's not an insult, it's highlighting what you voted for, if you find it insulting maybe you chose the wrong side.


What are you talking about? animals have and will be slaughtered under every government unless the whole population turn vegan.


----------



## Happy Paws2

negative creep said:


> Totally agree - on another forum I use someone is legitimately stating that anyone who voted Tory is a fascist (very appropriate on the anniversary of VE Day). * Quite clearly the majority of the country thought they were the right party for the job, *and many of them are ordinary working people because you wouldn't win many seats if only the rich voted for you


As I said earlier that I think most of the population are thick, and they havejust proved it.
.


----------



## porps

Pointermum said:


> No see I do agree those in true need should be protected but blaming the rich the whole time doesn't help. Unfortunately Labour allowed a system for too long to be milked , I don't know how it can be resolved to stop people like my sister but help those who truly need support.


and blaming the poor all the time doesnt help either. Well.. thats not entirely true.. it helps- if what you're actually trying to do is just distract people from the vastly higher amount of money that we lose to tax dodging toffs.


----------



## Dogloverlou

rottiepointerhouse said:


> What are you talking about? animals have and will be slaughtered under every government unless the whole population turn vegan.


I think she means if the hunting act is repealed? Which is a fair point.


----------



## shetlandlover

I think it's sad that people are resulting to petty insults because they don't agree with the way people have voted.


----------



## emmaviolet

negative creep said:


> Totally agree - on another forum I use someone is legitimately stating that anyone who voted Tory is a fascist (very appropriate on the anniversary of VE Day). *Quite clearly the majority of the country thought they were the right party for the job*, and many of them are ordinary working people because you wouldn't win many seats if only the rich voted for you


No, the majority of the country do not want conservatives in power, 36% voted for them, unless it is 51% plus then that's the majority.


----------



## porps

MOST of the population didnt vote tory.


cheekyscrip said:


> fight whom? al who voted/ those who voted Tories?
> 
> and if say Greens won? then would you be happy and would not fight? So we are to fight because the party you do not support won? and you know better?
> Shall we elect you the Emperor and highest priest of The Universe and then no more voting, no more parties...Let the force be with you!
> 
> So...manifesto please!
> whom to fight?
> why?
> who is to benefit if we win?
> 
> who is to benefit if we fight?
> (wish those who go fighting always asked those questions first?
> and small briefing before I pick my battle axe and follow you:
> Do you speak Russian?
> 
> Are any part of you electronic?
> 
> Where have you parked the spaceship?
> Is your Mum coming to collect you? (Can she take me too?)


I have no idea what you're talking about. Can i have some of what you're smoking?

I'll answer the first question you asked before you started babbling inanely - we should fight the state. all of them. not just tories, all these politicians are in it together. they said it themselves right? they may aswell be one party except that they like to give people the illussion that they have a choice.

Thats who we must fight. Not the voters.. they may be idiots, they may be delusional, or they may actually be as evil as the people they vote for - but at the end of the day theyre just sheep, and a shepherd can always find more sheep. It's the shepherd that needs to go.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dogloverlou said:


> I think she means if the hunting act is repealed? Which is a fair point.


Yes may be she is but who says a fox is any more important than a chicken or a cow? I'm totally anti blood sports and was vegetarian for many years by the way. Politics is not just about one thing and I'm afraid the sour grapes and spite on this thread are leaving well a sour taste in my mouth. Someone has to earn the money to pay for the NHS and the welfare state, we are not all evil and heartless.


----------



## Colliebarmy

shetlandlover said:


> How is that not an insult?
> 
> How does Pointermum voting for who she thinks is the lesser of the evils make her "cruel and uncaring"??


Cos sore losers are just that

sore losers


----------



## Colliebarmy

porps said:


> No.
> That they are evil heartless scum who disgust anyone with an ounce of empathy.


yep, live with it


----------



## shadowmare

So, let me just get this straight... are we blaming just the people who voted Conservatives for hating the old, frail, ill, weak and being blood thirsty animal killers? Or does that apply to EVERYONE who didn't vote labour? 
Also, i wonder how this thread would look if the choice would be to vote only for one party from 2: one that promises to bring back culling and hunting but also protects people on benefits, and the second one that protects all wildlife but plans huge cuts to benefits. Hmm... I'm sure that there would still be people shaming others for not voting for animal welfare just because this is an animal lovers forum.


----------



## porps

Colliebarmy said:


> yep, live with it


At least you have the balls to admit it, which is a refreshing change from people trying to make out they vote tory for any other reason than that they enjoy the misery of others.


----------



## emmaviolet

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes may be she is but who says a fox is any more important than a chicken or a cow? I'm totally anti blood sports and was vegetarian for many years by the way. Politics is not just about one thing and I'm afraid the sour grapes and spite on this thread are leaving well a sour taste in my mouth. Someone has to earn the money to pay for the NHS and the welfare state, we are not all evil and heartless.


Yes I meant foxes and badgers.
It's not just the one issue, taking from the ill and disabled, yet giving to the rich and also allowing them to avoid taxes is also a huge issue.

It's not sour grapes, not on my part anyway, I've lost personal things and handled it with dignity, this is concern for the future for the poor and sick and people really not giving a damn really, so long as they are ok.

Of course people have to pay/earn money, don't they always? Haven't they always?


----------



## silvi

A slightly lighter way of looking at things:

The country is screwed, the electorate is evil ... but here are nine reasons to be cheerful

Not the best article in the world, but some of the comments are good....especially once you scroll past the customary trolls.


----------



## porps

it's also not sour grapes on my part for the record. i knew the election would change nothing. It never does, it never will. No matter who you vote for, government wins.


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> MOST of the population didnt vote tory.
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about. Can i have some of what you're smoking?
> 
> I'll answer the first question you asked before you started babbling inanely - we should fight the state. all of them. not just tories, all these politicians are in it together. they said it themselves right? they may aswell be one party except that they like to give people the illussion that they have a choice.
> 
> Thats who we must fight. Not the voters.. they may be idiots, they may be delusional, or they may actually be as evil as the people they vote for - but at the end of the day theyre just sheep, and a shepherd can always find more sheep. It's the shepherd that needs to go.


when the shepherds go and sheepdogs go...you can imagine what happens to the sheep! If people ee masse where not sheep they would not need shepherds..right? I remember a nursery rhyme about a sheep who were told by fellow sheep to break away from shepherd and dodge sheepdogs....they went with the that new sheep...who obviously was a wolf in sheep clothing...
What is the state?

saying tax dodging toffs is like saying Labour benefit scammers...just as justified...expected better form you!!! much better!


----------



## porps

cheekyscrip said:


> when the shepherds go and sheepdogs go...you can imagine what happens to the sheep! If people ee masse where not sheep they would not need shepherds..right? I remember a nursery rhyme about a sheep who were told by fellow sheep to break away from shepherd and dodge sheepdogs....they went with the that new sheep...who obviously was a wolf in sheep clothing...
> What is the state?
> 
> saying tax dodging toffs is like saying Labour benefit scammers...just as justified...expected better form you!!! much better!


So your aurgument is based on a nursery rhyme? seriously?!
when the shepherds and the sheepdogs go, the sheep are free.


----------



## cheekyscrip

cheekyscrip said:


> when the shepherds go and sheepdogs go...you can imagine what happens to the sheep! If people ee masse where not sheep they would not need shepherds..right? I remember a nursery rhyme about a sheep who were told by fellow sheep to break away from shepherd and dodge sheepdogs....they went with the that new sheep...who obviously was a wolf in sheep clothing...
> What is the state?
> 
> saying tax dodging toffs is like saying Labour benefit scammers...just as justified...expected better form you!!! much better!


sour grapes me...man, for I do not believe that sheep without shepherds are any better off...sorry...


----------



## shetlandlover

porps said:


> At least you have the balls to admit it, which is a refreshing change from people trying to make out they vote tory for any other reason than that they enjoy the misery of others.


Of course!

We are all evil....I say this as I'm snuggled in my fox fur blanket, in my £1m house, whilst eating disabled children and picking my teeth with nurse badge pins.



Accusing people of enjoying seeing others suffer is just petty.


----------



## Pointermum

porps said:


> No.
> That they are evil heartless scum who disgust anyone with an ounce of empathy.


I'm heartless scum am I ? Me who stopped to pick up 3 snails who where going to get trodden on by kids walking to school the other day , teaching my daughter to look out and do the same, been vegetarian for 27 years, i'm someone who will drop everything to go and help someone, if voting can rip my heart out and make me scum well i'm OUT :Finger


----------



## porps

ofc! cos we couldnt possibly survive without someone controlling our every move, could we? I mean, there were no humans at all before goverments, cos survival without being controlled is impossible for our species as you quite rightly point out. we need to be sheep.. sure beats having to think for ourselves!!


----------



## negative creep

emmaviolet said:


> No, the majority of the country do not want conservatives in power, 36% voted for them, unless it is 51% plus then that's the majority.


More people voted for them than for any other party, so even if we had proportional representation they'd be the majority


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> when the shepherds and the sheepdogs go, the sheep are free.


 free to be defenceless..free to be got by wolves...to freeze..to starve..to die...Thank you ,but no....wanna see sheep with no shepherds and wolves around them...small trip to inner Russia...try it for size...some former kolhoz "Miechta Ilicha" will do. Talk to them..Drink with them...There is misery you just cannot imagine...state forgot about them...


----------



## porps

Pointermum said:


> I'm heartless scum *am I* ? Me who stopped to pick up 3 snails who where going to get trodden on by kids walking to school the other day , teaching my daughter to look out and do the same, been vegetarian for 27 years, i'm someone who will drop everything to go and help someone, if voting can rip my heart out and make me scum well i'm OUT :Finger


you voted tory? then i stick by what i said.


----------



## cheekyscrip

cheekyscrip said:


> free to be defenceless..free to be got by wolves...to freeze..to starve..to die...Thank you ,but no....wanna see sheep with no shepherds and wolves around them...small trip to inner Russia...try it for size...some former kolhoz "Miechta Ilicha" will do. Talk to them..Drink with them...There is misery you just cannot imagine...state forgot about them...


try to go out there ..and think for yourself..think fast.. run even faster...but you cannot run faster than bullets...

there are always human wolves...who thrive in no control no law... I would not like my kids to live in any of those places...whoever can kill you just because they feel like it...
thinking for yourself will do you much good..then you will join the wolves...better chance for you...if youTHINK OF IT


----------



## emmaviolet

negative creep said:


> More people voted for them than for any other party, so even if we had proportional representation they'd be the majority


Yes, but you said the majority of the country wanted them, which is incorrect, more people do not want them then do want them, yet here we are.


----------



## porps

LinznMilly said:


> If you don't vote, you _can't_ moan. You had the chance to use your voice and you chose not to. Likewise, if you vote for the Tories, you can't moan if that vote comes and stabs you in the back in the next 5 years. But those of us who voted against the grain - we have every right to moan because we haven't chosen this government. It's forced upon us. Like a Labour win would have been forced upon the Conservatives.


Ok, obviously all my posts in this thread so far PROVE that you CAN moan even if you didnt vote.

Those of you who "voted against the grain".. is that really what you think you did? you placed your mark, which is basically just giving your consent to this system. As i said already, it doesnt matter if you voted for someone who lost, cos theyre ALL THE SAME. they wear different colours so that people like you think they have some kind of democracy. it's a facade.

If you vote, you expressly support a system that keeps the same people in control of our lives year after year after year after year.


----------



## porps

cheekyscrip said:


> free to be defenceless..free to be got by wolves...to freeze..to starve..to die...Thank you ,but no....wanna see sheep with no shepherds and wolves around them...small trip to inner Russia...try it for size...some former kolhoz "Miechta Ilicha" will do. Talk to them..Drink with them...There is misery you just cannot imagine...state forgot about them...


yes.. free. Thats what i said.


----------



## Dogloverlou

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes may be she is but who says a fox is any more important than a chicken or a cow? I'm totally anti blood sports and was vegetarian for many years by the way. Politics is not just about one thing and I'm afraid the sour grapes and spite on this thread are leaving well a sour taste in my mouth. Someone has to earn the money to pay for the NHS and the welfare state, we are not all evil and heartless.


Chickens and Cows are not ripped to pieces for 'fun' though. Off topic for this thread, but I am worried by the threat of the hunting act being voted in.


----------



## cheekyscrip

porps said:


> yes.. free. Thats what i said.


free? so you do not need food, or shelter? health care? You can protect yourself and your family, animals, home from other free humans who might fancy what you got? and are free to take it from you and torture them,kill them, rape them..because they can do anything g they want..they are free...like in Rwanda? Asian Russia?
It mightbe very short lived paradise...but best luck... will you dare to go and try it?


----------



## Ang2

Its interesting that most of those who are outraged by fox hunting, defended the right to rip rabbits to bits with dogs on the 'rabbiting with dogs' thread. Maybe, if someone was putting that fox in a cooking pot, it would be ok eh? Double standards!


----------



## Dogloverlou

Ang2 said:


> Its interesting that most of those who are outraged by fox hunting, defended the right to rip rabbits to bits with dogs on the 'rabbiting with dogs' thread. Maybe, if someone was putting that fox in a cooking pot, it would be ok eh? Double standards!


I didn't see any such thread but am equally disgusted at any blood sport purely for fun. Hunting responsibly for the food chain is different entirely.

Seen as this is an animal lovers forum, yes, I'm shocked at that little detail not getting in the way of people's votes.


----------



## emmaviolet

Ang2 said:


> Its interesting that most of those who are outraged by fox hunting, defended the right to rip rabbits to bits with dogs on the 'rabbiting with dogs' thread. Maybe, if someone was putting that fox in a cooking pot, it would be ok eh? Double standards!


That is definitely not me, I don't agree with it at all I hate to see any animal suffering and that is something I have always believed. My dogs have never killed or attempted to kill another animal thankfully.


----------



## negative creep

emmaviolet said:


> Yes, but you said the majority of the country wanted them, which is incorrect, more people do not want them then do want them, yet here we are.


that's just splitting hairs - the fact is they won so clearly there are millions of ordinary working people who feel they are in the best position to lead the country


----------



## Colliebarmy

emmaviolet said:


> Yes, but you said the majority of the country wanted them, which is incorrect, more people do not want them then do want them, yet here we are.


on what basis do you decide that more dont want them than do? have you spoken to all of them?

you ASSUME (because it suits you) that anything other than a Tory vote IS against them and anyone who DIDNT vote might be against them, clearly a flawed arguement

If you want everyone to vote, fine, but till then, and reliant on proportional representation we have to use the system as it is

If t had been Labour in the winning seat with the current system would you be moaning?


----------



## rona

emmaviolet said:


> I see your empathic with the plight of the sick and the weak then. A lot of those people will be loosing sleep tonight though sadly.


See, I don't understand this. I know a family where every member is disabled. They aren't scammers, they are truly disabled.
They are family and they have been given properties each and a very decent living income. Far better living than we have that's for sure. They can afford to heat their houses, all individuals have modern technology in various forms and they can even afford fripperies and holidays................


----------



## Colliebarmy




----------



## Colliebarmy

rona said:


> See, I don't understand this. I know a family where every member is disabled. They aren't scammers, they are truly disabled.
> They are family and they have been given properties each and a very decent living income. Far better living than we have that's for sure. They can afford to heat their houses, all individuals have modern technology in various forms and they can even afford fripperies and holidays................


Oh PLEEEEEEEESE, dont suggest the Tories dont whip, skin and burn em alive, that doesnt sit well with the sore losers


----------



## Nicky10

Are we now going to have what the Americans have been struggling with for 8 years? The losers doing everything they can to block any motion put across by the democratically elected victor in a pretty epic tantrum? Because it's looking that way to me. Had Labour or however unlikely the greens won you would have been crowing about the victory of the people. Now that the system hasn't delivered what you want it to it's the worst thing.


----------



## Colliebarmy




----------



## Colliebarmy

Nicky10 said:


> Are we now going to have what the Americans have been struggling with for 8 years? The losers doing everything they can to block any motion put across by the democratically elected victor in a pretty epic tantrum? Because it's looking that way to me. Had Labour or however unlikely the greens won you would have been crowing about the victory of the people. Now that the system hasn't delivered what you want it to it's the worst thing.


Well said that man...er....woman?


----------



## Colliebarmy

And just for Clegg, Milly Band and Farage...


----------



## Goblin

emmaviolet said:


> It's not just the one issue, taking from the ill and disabled, yet giving to the rich and also allowing them to avoid taxes is also a huge issue.


once again this lie is trotted out. The very rich actually pay more under the Tory government than they did under Labour. The difference is it's not like Brown in 2010 who raised the tax to 50% and drove 2/3rds of the millionaires out of the country, depriving the UK of 7billion income. Tax loopholes are also being closed. Doesn't suit you to actually use facts though does it.



> Of course people have to pay/earn money, don't they always? Haven't they always?


No according to some, others should earn it for them.


----------



## Ang2

Maybe if Labour had kept the welfare system for those who need it, rather than a 'free for all, come and get it' , I would have voted Labour! Statistically, there needs to be more paying into the pot, than taking out! Some of you just don't seem to care or worry about where that money will come from, as the bill rises.


----------



## rona

Ang2 said:


> Its interesting that most of those who are outraged by fox hunting, defended the right to rip rabbits to bits with dogs on the 'rabbiting with dogs' thread. Maybe, if someone was putting that fox in a cooking pot, it would be ok eh? Double standards!


Or pouring boiling water on ants or vacuuming up spiders


----------



## Pointermum

Ang2 said:


> Maybe if Labour had kept the welfare system for those who need it, rather than a 'free for all, come and get it' , I would have voted Labour! Statistically, there needs to be more paying into the pot, than taking out! Some of you just don't seem to care or worry about where that money will come from, as the bill rises.


Well you just tax the bankers :Greedy:Greedy:Greedy more innit , so people on benefit could have six figure incomes enguin


----------



## Mr Gizmo

Remember back to Wednesday when this was meant to be a fun thread,oh well never mind.


----------



## Rafa

You can't really escape the fact that the Country voted and they voted for the Conservatives.

No Government is perfect, none ever has been.


----------



## rona

Colliebarmy said:


> And just for Clegg, Milly Band and Farage...
> ]


I hear they are going to be the new Top Gear presenters?


----------



## rona

Ang2 said:


> Maybe if Labour had kept the welfare system for those who need it, rather than a 'free for all, come and get it' , I would have voted Labour! Statistically, there needs to be more paying into the pot, than taking out! Some of you just don't seem to care or worry about where that money will come from, as the bill rises.


That's what the immigration is about isn't it?


----------



## porps

from reading this thread it appears that the only concern of tory voters seems to be welfare.

"I work hard to earn x amount. but other people who dont work at all, can sometimes still manage to survive. This isnt fair. so i will vote tory. Even though i know tories hate animals, and people, at least they hate poor people just like i do."

thats literally what you all sound like.

Is your desire to have more material wealth than other people really so all consuming that it trumps every other issue?

spose thats humans for you... just a horrible horrible species.


----------



## tinaK

didn't take them long

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html


----------



## cheekyscrip

rona said:


> I hear they are going to be the new Top Gear presenters?


You are joking?They gonna crash everything...and Farage will refuse to drive anything foreign...with maybe German being the exception? And Plastic Ed will not share the wheel!
And clegg is only used to being back seat driver!


----------



## emmaviolet

rona said:


> See, I don't understand this. I know a family where every member is disabled. They aren't scammers, they are truly disabled.
> They are family and they have been given properties each and a very decent living income. Far better living than we have that's for sure. They can afford to heat their houses, all individuals have modern technology in various forms and they can even afford fripperies and holidays................


So? Some can't afford to eat with disabilities because of the cuts. I know these people, storing their drugs to top themselves when they lose the benefits.

God forbid anyone should ever need help because they are ill, or those who are ill but managing now get sicker and need to quit work, or their OH does and they need to care for them, good luck.


----------



## rona

emmaviolet said:


> So? Some can't afford to eat with disabilities because of the cuts. I know these people, storing their drugs to top themselves when they lose the benefits.
> 
> God forbid anyone should ever need help because they are ill, or those who are ill but managing now get sicker and need to quit work, or their OH does and they need to care for them, good luck.


The people I know don't work. They live purely on benefits and get more than enough for a comfortable life


----------



## shadowmare

Sweety said:


> You can't really escape the fact that the Country voted and they voted for the Conservatives.
> 
> No Government is perfect, none ever has been.


Agree. This whole thread really reminds me of the tensions that kicked off after the Scottish referendum. It seems like people forget that whenever there is voting, there will *always *be someone who loses. You will end up on the wining side or the losing side. Life is never fair. It will never be. There will always be someone who is doing better whether they were lucky or worked hard. And that is the sad truth of life. 
Trying to shame, guilt trip or demonise someone who disagreed with your choice is pointless and petty. I find it funny that so many people are shouting about torry voters being supporters of brutal killing and torturing of helpless animals because they voted for a party that had mentioned something about it in their speeches. Because we're all animal lovers here right? And if you voted Torry you MUST be an animal hater with no soul. However, god forbid you try to tell a forum member that he made a crap choice when he bought a puppy or a kitten from a byb or a puppy farm and you will be stoned to death by comments about how unwelcoming you are! Yet it seems if you follow this logic, we surely should tell each of these people that they are idiots, who don't give a sh*t about animal's welfare, support animal cruelty and torture in addition to them being selfish and cheap. Right?

You vote and you hope for the best outcome, but at the end of the day everyone has to do their best to live with whatever government they have, country they live or a job they have.


----------



## emmaviolet

rona said:


> The people I know don't work. They live purely on benefits and get more than enough for a comfortable life


So that's good then, if they are too ill to work and they are ok.
But it's not the truth the country over and it's not the norm.


----------



## tinaK

The cuts are scaring the hell out of me. I can't work (wish I could) due to uncontrolled Bipolar. I am in and out of hospital. Yes I do get benefits. but the way things are going I am going to be forced to work when I can't and have my benefits stopped .


----------



## rona

emmaviolet said:


> So that's good then, if they are too ill to work and they are ok.
> But it's not the truth the country over and it's not the norm.


But how come they can do it and others can't?

The benefits are obviously there for them

One is even a single girl........................


----------



## Spellweaver

Lurcherlad said:


> Not every Tory voter is a supporter of fox hunting or the badger cull. Fox hunting hasn't actually stopped anyway - those who support it have managed to get round the ban quite well, I understand. There are many more issues to consider. Not least the future security of one's own family - not great to have to choose one over the other, but that is the unfortunate reality.


Sorry - everyone who voted Tory voted for a party which intends to bring back fox hunting and extend badger culling. No matter how many more issues there are to consider, these were two of them. If you voted conservative, you have supported them, whether you intended to or not. I'm sure it will comfort the fox as he is being ripped to pieces to know that some of the people who voted for him being ripped to pieces didn't really support him being ripped to pieces. Ditto the badgers as they are being killed unnecessarily.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry Noush you can post as many opinions from celebs as you like, the public didn't buy it. I never read such a load of tosh as that tweet above. Does she seriously expect us to believe that all benefts will be stopped all NHS hospitals will be sold with no free health care? I understand feelings are running high and people are licking their wounds but seriously.


Well, 37% of those who voted didn't buy it. The rest of us - ie the majority - were more astute.



emmaviolet said:


> It sounds extreme but I truly believe that the next time someone takes their life because their benefits have stopped and they are disabled, not only do the conservatives have blood on their hands, but everyone who voted for them too. Likewise the blood of the badgers and foxes when that comes back in too.
> It may sound extreme, but I wouldn't be able to look in the mirror had I voted for a party that wants to strip the poor and leave them in a gutter and enhance the wealthy. It's my opinion and it may sound extreme to some, but I think you should think of society as a whole, not if you will gain a few quid financially (which I bet most who voted for them won't anyway, just wait!).


It's not extreme. It's how most right-minded people think. It's how the majroty of people in the UK think. Don't forget, only around 37% of people who voted actually voted Conservative.



Ang2 said:


> So, Spellweaver, let me ask you a question.
> 
> If UKIP were the only party that would ban fox hunting and the badger cull - would you have voted for them? Because that's exactly what you are saying to others. Vote for the animal welfare party, and f*ck everything else!


You mean like the only issue for you and the rest of UKIP supporters was immigration and f**k everything else?. Actually, you are wrong. I have argued on many threads on here - and often against you, so you have no reason to suppose otherwise - that fighting racism and homophobia and misogyny are alos important, as is fighting for the most vulnerable in our society. I have also made it abundantly clear many times that for me, animal welfare is one of the important issues on which I could never compromise. I could never vote for any party whose manifesto included a promise to bring back fox hunting - but neither could I vote for any party which advoated any of the above. That's why I would never why I would never vote Tory, and why I would never vote UKIP, who are merely Tories with the added racism, homophobia and misogyny.



porps said:


> yes, you have blood on your hands. whether you choose to face that fact or not it remains a fact. At least have the strength of conviction to say "i voted tory cos i dont care about less well off people or animals".





Dogloverlou said:


> Exactly. I'd expect those who voted for any party to stand by the choices and plans laid out by said party. Not be insulted or offended when those issues are raised.


This is what gets me. Everyone has the right to vote who they want to vote for. But voting for someone and then trying to say, "Well, I didn't vote for x, y or z" is stupid. If you voted for a party that advocates x,y and z then you voted for x.y and z. So stand up for your beliefs. instead of getting upset because others are saying that they could never vote for x,y and z?



shetlandlover said:


> Hang on...so far all I've seen is people attacking Conservative voters.
> 
> I've not seen any conservative voters attacking anyone on their votes.
> 
> Seriously....


Seriously? Take a look at some of Colliebarmy's and Magnus' to begin with.



negative creep said:


> Totally agree - on another forum I use someone is legitimately stating that anyone who voted Tory is a fascist (very appropriate on the anniversary of VE Day). *Quite clearly the majority of the country thought they were the right party for the job*, and many of them are ordinary working people because you wouldn't win many seats if only the rich voted for you


Er - no - a minority of 37% of voters thought they were - and that's 37% of those who voted, not of all the country.



Ang2 said:


> Its interesting that most of those who are outraged by fox hunting, defended the right to rip rabbits to bits with dogs on the 'rabbiting with dogs' thread. Maybe, if someone was putting that fox in a cooking pot, it would be ok eh? Double standards!


Not me.


----------



## Colliebarmy

This getting silly

We had a vote, as in life there were winners and losers

The system is, per constituency, most votes wins.....and the most constituency wins makes the government if they can get enough seats

The Tories won.... whats the beef?


----------



## Colliebarmy

emmaviolet said:


> So that's good then, if they are too ill to work and they are ok.
> But it's not the truth the country over and it's not the norm.


On what do you base that opinion? newspapers? Benefit street? Labour hype?

Dint you notice how the howls about the NHS suddenly appeared when an election came about? not much before was there, like so many teacher and firemen strikes...Im not saying they were orchestrated by Labour and the unions but....well yes I am


----------



## MoggyBaby

Ang2 said:


> Its interesting that most of those who are outraged by fox hunting, defended the right to rip rabbits to bits with dogs on the 'rabbiting with dogs' thread. Maybe, if someone was putting that fox in a cooking pot, it would be ok eh? Double standards!


Believe me, if I had seen that thread (I'm guessing it was in the Dog section where I do not venture) then I would not have been defending anything other than the rights of the rabbits NOT to be ripped apart by dogs.


----------



## Colliebarmy

rona said:


> Or pouring boiling water on ants or vacuuming up spiders


WASPS! kill em all!


----------



## Goblin

porps said:


> "I work hard to earn x amount. but other people who dont work at all, can sometimes still manage to survive. This isnt fair. so i will vote tory. Even though i know tories hate animals, and people, at least they hate poor people just like i do."


No that's what people are saying anyone who didn't vote labour says. Like most things it's more complicated than that. People are saying they wouldn't trust Labour with the economy. They wouldn't trust Labour with the NHS or education which relies on money from the economy. They don't trust labour to actually reduce the deficit which has long term effects on our descendants. The welfare state as it stands is unworkable. Generations of people living on benefit is not a long term viable prospect. I haven't seen anyone who says benefits don't need to exist but they need to actually reach the people who need it, not simply those who choose to be in that position as an easy option.

Which party is prepared to tackle the difficulty of the welfare state whilst keeping the economy going. Which party is prepared to penalize overseas investors in regards to investing in property which simply lies empty? Which party is prepared to strengthen tenant rights but not go overboard. To be honest I don't think any but we have to select from what is available and people did that based on the information provided and their own personal experiences.

As far as the animal cruelty goes, many of those who go on about that also condone the long term cruelty of some pedigree dog breeding. Never simply black and white.


----------



## Dogloverlou

Goblin said:


> No that's what people are saying anyone who didn't vote labour says. Like most things it's more complicated than that. People are saying they wouldn't trust Labour with the economy. They wouldn't trust Labour with the NHS or education which relies on money from the economy. They don't trust labour to actually reduce the deficit which has long term effects on our descendants. The welfare state as it stands is unworkable. Generations of people living on benefit is not a long term viable prospect. I haven't seen anyone who says benefits don't need to exist but they need to actually reach the people who need it, not simply those who choose to be in that position as an easy option.
> 
> Which party is prepared to tackle the difficulty of the welfare state whilst keeping the economy going. Which party is prepared to penalize overseas investors in regards to investing in property which simply lies empty? Which party is prepared to strengthen tenant rights but not go overboard. To be honest I don't think any but we have to select from what is available and people did that based on the information provided and their own personal experiences.
> 
> *As far as the animal cruelty goes, many of those who go on about that also condone the long term cruelty of some pedigree dog breeding. Never simply black and white*.


You can not surely be comparing a fox being ripped to pieces to pedigree dogs being bred? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel lol.


----------



## rona

Dogloverlou said:


> You can not surely be comparing a fox being ripped to pieces to pedigree dogs being bred? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel lol.


Why.........some of those dogs are bred to suffer all their lives


----------



## Goblin

Dogloverlou said:


> You can not surely be comparing a fox being ripped to pieces to pedigree dogs being bred? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel lol.


Tell that to a dog that has trouble breathing throughout it's life due to someone's perverse desire to match a description created by someone else or a dog which has folds of skin prone to skin problems. What else do you call that other than cruelty? Oh that's right.. popular people on this forum are personally involved so it's allowed. I haven't seen anyone on this forum who participates or approves of fox hunting.


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm really sorry you feel like that but I do think in a few days time when you have had time to regroup and start planning for the future you will see things differently and feel less despondent. I know you feel passionately about things and I admire your passion. I'm old enough to have lived through the Winter of Discontent when bodies literally were piled up and rubbish covered our streets - we were held to ransom by the unions and again under labour remember the tanker drivers bringing the country to a standstill. I simply do not believe that there will be no healthcare free at the point of access in this country although I do think its time for some changes to be made in how we fund it. Just out of interest which country do you think are so much better than ours?


I wont see things differently though RPH. Barely a day has gone by over the last five years that I haven't been upset by some cruel tory policy or other. In a few weeks time when the little badger cubs start leaving their setts to explore they will start shooting them, I feel devastated just thinking about it happening. I see stories of people suffering under imposed austerity all the time, & I'm gutted for them. They have destroyed all manner of environmental legislation. The list has been endless. And we know its only going to be more of the same for vulnerable people and for wildlife.

I've been on the other side, my Dad was a miner, on strike for 12 months. They were fighting to save their jobs. Without the trade unions we wouldn't have had our amazing NHS, we owe them a lot. The government can find millions for a cruel & futile badger cull, billions for bankers bonuses, trillions for trident & for wars but it cant find anything for the NHS? Sorry but I trust what the medical professionals are saying. They have been desperate to get the truth out but the media has been complicit, so many people have no idea what is happening.

Paul Krugman article in the NY Times on how the UK media reported Tory propaganda as fact.-

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-unthinking.html?_r=0

ETA. Personally I think Scotland is going to be an amazing place to live. I don't know which country my boys would choose though.



rona said:


> Or pouring boiling water on ants or vacuuming up spiders


You're sad about this but you're perfectly happy for birds & mammals to be killed for fun?:Wideyed


----------



## emmaviolet

rona said:


> But how come they can do it and others can't?
> 
> The benefits are obviously there for them
> 
> One is even a single girl........................


Not everyone can.

A big part of it is getting the specific wording right on the forms, getting lucky with a fair assessor or being in the right area, some areas are harder then others.

Could be luck of the draw, there are many different factors involved, sometimes MP's are willing to help or they have a great and supportive dr to help them out. God knows, but there's a lot of awful real stories out there from people who struggle to move eveyday.


----------



## Colliebarmy

rona said:


> That's what the immigration is about isn't it?


I very much doubt it, most of em are cash in hand


----------



## Dogloverlou

Goblin said:


> Tell that to a dog that has trouble breathing throughout it's life due to someone's perverse desire to match a description created by someone else or a dog which has folds of skin prone to skin problems. What else do you call that other than cruelty? Oh that's right.. popular people on this forum are personally involved so it's allowed. I haven't seen anyone on this forum who participates or approves of fox hunting.


You could argue that voting Conservative does in a round about way mean you accept, and condone, the hunting act being repealed if/and when the time comes.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

porps said:


> you voted tory? then i stick by what i said.


So you think I'm heartless scum too? Over 20 years spent nursing, wiping bottoms, feeding people, tending to their wounds and holding their hands while they die? Not to mention animal rights and rescue work and the charity donations - regular ones you know not just when children in need is on. All that counts for nothing because I vote for a party some of you don't like.


----------



## silvi

Nicky10 said:


> Are we now going to have what the Americans have been struggling with for 8 years? The losers doing everything they can to block any motion put across by the democratically elected victor in a pretty epic tantrum? Because it's looking that way to me. Had Labour or however unlikely the greens won you would have been crowing about the victory of the people. Now that the system hasn't delivered what you want it to it's the worst thing.


Actually, although I voted Labour, I wouldn't be crowing over anything if they had won - more likely just breathing a sigh of relief which now, sadly, I am unable to sigh.

And sorry, but our democratic system allows the blocking of policies put forward by the leadership, because those doing the blocking have also been democratically elected. Nothing to do with a 'strop' - just the way it works.

As to what the Americans have been struggling with..... One of the main things that Americans have struggled to achieve is a free health service. But it looks like we are soon going to be losing what they are struggling for.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dogloverlou said:


> Chickens and Cows are not ripped to pieces for 'fun' though. Off topic for this thread, but I am worried by the threat of the hunting act being voted in.


Really have you seen some of the AR footage of them being hit, punched, kicked and having cigarettes stubbed out on them by vile humans in slaughter houses? I don't want to see fox hunting back anymore than anyone else does but calling people heartless/evil/filth is taking things too far. That really is a sign of a bad loser to stoop to personal insults.


----------



## rona

emmaviolet said:


> Not everyone can.
> 
> A big part of it is getting the specific wording right on the forms, getting lucky with a fair assessor or being in the right area, some areas are harder then others.
> 
> Could be luck of the draw, there are many different factors involved, sometimes MP's are willing to help or they have a great and supportive dr to help them out. God knows, but there's a lot of awful real stories out there from people who struggle to move eveyday.


So what you are saying is it's not the governments fault, the funds are there. It might just be some jumped up jobsworth in your area?


----------



## shadowmare

noushka05 said:


> ETA. Personally I think Scotland is going to be an amazing place to live. I don't know which country my boys would choose though.


But Scotland is full of soulless monsters who don't care about foxes and people with disabilities!
Maybe they should just re-name it Scumland?...


----------



## emmaviolet

Colliebarmy said:


> On what do you base that opinion? newspapers? Benefit street? Labour hype?
> 
> Dint you notice how the howls about the NHS suddenly appeared when an election came about? not much before was there, like so many teacher and firemen strikes...Im not saying they were orchestrated by Labour and the unions but....well yes I am


No, as I said earlier, I have chronic health issue, a few autoimmune things that cause many problems and pain, so I belong to a few groups IRL and online. I know a lot of people who depend on their benefit, this comes from these people, real life people I know and interact with.

No, the news of the NHS has been around for a while now, like how they have sold off our private information to companies who can use it to their financial advantage.
It's been around for a couple of years that these are their plans.


----------



## silvi

Colliebarmy said:


> Dint you notice how the howls about the NHS suddenly appeared when an election came about? not much before was there, like so many teacher and firemen strikes...Im not saying they were orchestrated by Labour and the unions but....well yes I am


The 'howls' (as you describe them) about the NHS have been appearing constantly ever since the Coalition government got into its stride, and have increased throughout their time in power because of the changes being made and further changes proposed. People haven't just suddenly appeared out of the woodwork complaining. They have been trying to get the attention of NHS users (ie; us) for a long time.

Of course this was picked up by Labour and highlighted during their election campaign, but for those who bothered to look, these concerns were there and were being voiced long before the campaigns of recent months.


----------



## noushka05

shadowmare said:


> But Scotland is full of soulless monsters who don't care about foxes and people with disabilities!
> Maybe they should just re-name it Scumland?...


Scotland is full of people who have social values


----------



## emmaviolet

rona said:


> So what you are saying is it's not the governments fault, the funds are there. It might just be some jumped up jobsworth in your area?


It's not my area, it's all over the country.

The funds aren't there, they announced billions in cuts (not this time, before) and a lot of people were just told their benefit would not be there for them anymore.

There aren't the funds there from the government. I was saying that it's not as easy as saying you know a family who are fine so all should be. Look online, say an arthritis or disability forum, there are people everyday being cut.


----------



## silvi

shadowmare said:


> But Scotland is full of soulless monsters who don't care about foxes and people with disabilities!
> Maybe they should just re-name it Scumland?...


Where the hell are you getting that from? 

Just because Scottish voters voted SNP does not mean that those issues weren't considered.
It was made perfectly plain to anyone who actually wanted to listen that the SNP was about much more than Scottish Nationalism.


----------



## rona

emmaviolet said:


> It's not my area, it's all over the country.
> 
> The funds aren't there, they announced billions in cuts (not this time, before) and a lot of people were just told their benefit would not be there for them anymore.
> 
> There aren't the funds there from the government. I was saying that it's not as easy as saying you know a family who are fine so all should be. Look online, say an arthritis or disability forum, there are people everyday being cut.


Mmmm odd _disability benefits have always been exempt. Is it that it's just harder to be deemed disabled? _


----------



## noushka05

Breaking news from Greenpeace. FFS, the tories don't give a toss about anything only money 

Tories elected, fracking firm shares soar. We're determined to challenge the industry head on http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...RS-UK-fracking-firm-IGas-Energy-rises-Tories-


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Mmmm odd _disability benefits have always been exempt. *Is it that it's just harder to be deemed disabled?* _


I think you have answered your own question there Rona.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Spellweaver said:


> Sorry - everyone who voted Tory voted for a party which intends to bring back fox hunting and extend badger culling. No matter how many more issues there are to consider, these were two of them. If you voted conservative, you have supported them, whether you intended to or not. I'm sure it will comfort the fox as he is being ripped to pieces to know that some of the people who voted for him being ripped to pieces didn't really support him being ripped to pieces. Ditto the badgers as they are being killed unnecessarily.


So tell me when deciding who to vote for did you agree 100% with every single policy of the party you voted for? If like many people there was no one party you agreed 100% with then surely there has to be a process of elimination to see which party best represents you even if it has some policies you don't agree with. How about when Mr Blair took us to war in Iraq under false pretences - did every labour voter stop voting labour after that because of that one thing or did they decide to forgive that thing because on the whole labour still represented their beliefs regarding the welfare state and NHS etc?

I also don't believe you are vegetarian so whilst I'm not either I'd like to know why you think its OK to say some of us have blood on our hands when clearly you do too.


----------



## emmaviolet

rona said:


> Mmmm odd _disability benefits have always been exempt. Is it that it's just harder to be deemed disabled? _


Exempt from what? Cuts, because they have been a big factor in the cuts, especially the getting people off of incapacity benefit/esa, that's been a big one of the cuts.

It's the tests they can do, or the form traps. If you can set an alarm clock you are deemed able to work. If you do not use the correct key words in the forms they will not award you points.
There's whole areas of the internet that tries to help.
Say something like if you say you have discomfort in walking then they will count it, if you say pain they won't. It's all complex and complicated and most people are too ill to even understand them.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## rona

silvi said:


> I think you have answered your own question there Rona.


With some of the scammers I've seen, that isn't necessarily bad . I've seen more cheating the system than needing the system, and those that need it due to illness (not just hard times) have got the help they needed.


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> FFS, the tories don't give a toss about anything only money


"Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver."


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Really have you seen some of the AR footage of them being hit, punched, kicked and having cigarettes stubbed out on them by vile humans in slaughter houses? I don't want to see fox hunting back anymore than anyone else does but calling people heartless/evil/filth is taking things too far. That really is a sign of a bad loser to stoop to personal insults.


Thank goodness for ARA's for exposing animal abuse, but horrible things like this happen whatever party is in power RPH. The labour party don't go far enough for me, but it has been by far the greatest champion of animal welfare (& environmental protection). The tory party record is shocking & this governments must be the worst ever.


----------



## Elles

I've been fox-hunting quite a few times when it was legal. The majority of people voted against it and don't want it, I accept that and bow to the majority.

I am very against live export. I'm also a vegetarian, as I cannot accept factory farming, or the way animals are raised and slaughtered for meat that I don't need to eat in order to survive. I feed my dog raw meat, most of which I buy from a local butcher. I believe that my dog is healthier fed raw meat and bones and try to find the most ethical source for her meat, even though I wouldn't eat it myself and haven't for over 40 years.

So, I am one member of pet-forums who has participated in hunting and, although I wouldn't go out of my way to support the return of fox-hunting, I'm not against it either. Some of my friends do still hunt, though obviously not foxes, they drag hunt. Foxes still die and there are worse ways to go. I think the best we can all hope for is a good life and a quick, painless death.


----------



## MyMillie

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So you think I'm heartless scum too? Over 20 years spent nursing, wiping bottoms, feeding people, tending to their wounds and holding their hands while they die? Not to mention animal rights and rescue work and the charity donations - regular ones you know not just when children in need is on. All that counts for nothing because I vote for a party some of you don't like.


I certainly would be the last person to class you as "heartless Scum" far from it,....Sadly, I just see lots of people on this thread as Disillusioned on whats 'really' happening, or more to the point "whats going to happen" now "they" are still in power....Shudder!!


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> "Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver."


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo  lol


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> Thank goodness for ARA's for exposing animal abuse, but horrible things like this happen whatever party is in power RPH. The labour party don't go far enough for me, but it has been by far the greatest champion of animal welfare (& environmental protection). The tory party record is shocking & this governments must be the worst ever.


Of course they do Noush, I wasn't making a political comment there just pointing out that while foxes may die horrid deaths for sport the animals we eat can suffer just as badly so I don't think we should be trying to make some people feel they personally have blood on their hands for voting for a party who are going to hold a vote on it whilst happily tucking into steak and chips.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> I've been fox-hunting quite a few times when it was legal. The majority of people voted against it and don't want it, I accept that and bow to the majority.
> 
> I am very against live export. I'm also a vegetarian, as I cannot accept factory farming, or the way animals are raised and slaughtered for meat that I don't need to eat in order to survive. I feed my dog raw meat, most of which I buy from a local butcher. I believe that my dog is healthier fed raw meat and bones and try to find the most ethical source for her meat, even though I wouldn't eat it myself and haven't for over 40 years.
> 
> So, I am one member of pet-forums who has participated in hunting and, although I wouldn't go out of my way to support the return of fox-hunting, I'm not against it either. Some of my friends do still hunt, though obviously not foxes, they drag hunt.* Foxes still die and there are worse ways to go. I think the best we can all hope for is a good life and a quick, painless death. *


A terrified animal chased for miles, dug out if they go to ground, torn apart by a pack of dogs - i cant think of much worse ways to go. Its bloody barbaric.


----------



## Dogloverlou

Elles said:


> I've been fox-hunting quite a few times when it was legal. The majority of people voted against it and don't want it, I accept that and bow to the majority.
> 
> I am very against live export. I'm also a vegetarian, as I cannot accept factory farming, or the way animals are raised and slaughtered for meat that I don't need to eat in order to survive. I feed my dog raw meat, most of which I buy from a local butcher. I believe that my dog is healthier fed raw meat and bones and try to find the most ethical source for her meat, even though I wouldn't eat it myself and haven't for over 40 years.
> 
> So, I am one member of pet-forums who has participated in hunting and, although I wouldn't go out of my way to support the return of fox-hunting, I'm not against it either. Some of my friends do still hunt, though obviously not foxes, they drag hunt. Foxes still die and there are worse ways to go. I* think the best we can all hope for is a good life and a quick, painless death.*


If only that was the way the poor foxes did go. But they don't and sick people get their kicks from watching and/or participating......


----------



## Ang2

Noush, so how do you feel about whole new cities being built to accommodate the soaring population as it heads towards 100 Million? Our countryside will be decimated, along with wildlife and habitats.


----------



## rona

Ang2 said:


> Noush, so how do you feel about whole new cities being built to accommodate the soaring population as it heads towards 100 Million? Our countryside will be decimated, along with wildlife and habitats.


This is the biggest threat.

Stop people moving here and stop people breeding out of control.....................


----------



## Elles

As an ex participant in fox-hunting, that's not how I view it Noushka. The animals are currently dug out, shot, trapped and poisoned, sick, or healthy, young or old. Die over days from accidental injury, traffic. Disease. A hunted fox is caught and dead, or it escapes to live another day. Killed by the first hound to snap its neck. I'd like to see CCTV in all abattoirs and live export banned before fox-hunting. Yet they aren't even on the agenda.  I think most people who would vote against fox hunting, were voting against fox killing. If they were asked to support fox poisoning, or fox trapping do you think they would? Look at rabbits and myxi? Is that a better way to go? Sorry, but I can't agree with you. I'd rather see no animal hurt, killed or injured for humans, whether food, pest, or sport, if truth be told, but I can't get up in arms about fox-hunting, when I truly believe we inflict worse on them. It's a shame it's still a political issue. Most people wanted it banned, it got banned, just leave it banned.  Let's as a country discuss other injustices instead.


----------



## cinnamontoast

Former executive director of LACS: he writes in a very balanced manner, I find.

https://jamesbarrington.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/polls-apart/

And again, how can people vote on one issue? And no, if you vote for a party, it does NOT make you an advocate of that one issue. That's unfair and simplistic.


----------



## Satori

cinnamontoast said:


> Former executive director of LACS: he writes in a very balanced manner, I find.
> 
> https://jamesbarrington.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/polls-apart/
> 
> And again, how can people vote on one issue? And no, if you vote for a party, it does NOT make you an advocate of that one issue. That's unfair and simplistic.


How apposite the final sentence in the context of this thread.

"Finally, be wary of those who shout loudly about things they don't fully understand, whether they be pollsters, press or the prejudiced."


----------



## negative creep

cinnamontoast said:


> And again, how can people vote on one issue? And no, if you vote for a party, it does NOT make you an advocate of that one issue. That's unfair and simplistic.


Totally agree - the only way you could find a party that totally fits with your own views would be to start one yourself. Otherwise it's a case of picking the one that has the most policies you agree with


----------



## cheekyscrip

What is important now for us..for Europe we are part of..for unity of Britain..is the referendum on Europe..I believe you all have right to debate..but hope the common sense and sense of responsibility beyond UK will prevail and Britain will stay whole and in Europe. 
If not..this result today will be beginning of something really benefitting only enemies of our shared , democratic, liberal values and traditions..like IS or Putin..
Or so it seems as seen from the Rock..
And please, make constituency of Gibraltar, very South England...like for EU elections..so we can vote too.


----------



## LinznMilly

Pointermum said:


> *Original Quote edited by Pointermum*.


I think your sister needs a link to this thread - and an account so she can follow it. I think she needs to .... no - _deserves_ to know what her own sister thinks about her publicly and the image you are portraying of a woman who is (presumably) not here to defend herself. I think she deserves to know that this isn't the first time you've portrayed her as someone who is, at best, a breeding machine, and, at worst, someone who can't keep her legs together.

Say what you like about having nothing against anyone being happy. Your posts spit venom and bitterness every time you mention your sister.

I wonder what those kids, who you've openly said you would take in, would think of you if they knew how you spoke to others about their mother.



Ang2 said:


> Its interesting that *most of those who are outraged by fox hunting, defended the right to rip rabbits to bits with dogs on the 'rabbiting with dogs' thread*. Maybe, if someone was putting that fox in a cooking pot, it would be ok eh? Double standards!





rona said:


> Or pouring boiling water on ants or vacuuming up spiders


I challenge you to name those who are appalled by fox hunting on this thread, who have defended the right to "rip rabbits to bits". They would have nothing to hide because a link to the relevant thread would suffice to out them. I know for a fact that you won't find my name amongst them. I haven't even seen that thread! Personally, I leave spiders alone, open the window for flies and, if necessary, "guide" them through it with a piece of paper, and even saved a damn wasp that was starving to death in Max's food bowl the other week... And when I say "saved it", I don't mean I simply put it outside and left it to its fate - I mean I researched what adult wasps eat (nectar, for those who don't know), I made up some sugar-water and fed it via cotton buds through the bottom of a glass. I kept an eye on its progress, and once I deemed it well enough to be released (ie, when it was exploring it's container and showing "normal" behaviour), only then did I release it....

As for ants, I'm lucky that I've never had a problem with them, so never had to "pour boiling water on them".

So yeah - who are those who support rabbit hunting, but not fox hunting?

Or are you simply trying to point score?



Goblin said:


> *No according to some, others should earn it for them*.*[*/QUOTE]
> 
> So, it's OK for you to tar the rest of us voters as benefit scroungers - whether that's reality or not? But God Forbid anyone calls you unfeeling millionaire animal haters? Or implies it?
> 
> Double standards, anyone?


----------



## Guest

LinznMilly said:


> I challenge you to name those who are appalled by fox hunting on this thread, who have defended the right to "rip rabbits to bits". They would have nothing to hide because a link to the relevant thread would suffice to out them.


Link:
http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/rabbiting-with-dogs.396716/

Nobody defended ripping rabbits to bits, it was mostly a conversation about kids knowing where their food comes from.

Not comment on the election or UK politics, I was just reading this thread trying to educate myself, and noticed something about a thread I had participated in. Thought I'd clarify for anyone wondering .


----------



## Ang2

Yes they did! Under the guise of 'kids should know where their meat comes from'


----------



## shadowmare

silvi said:


> Where the hell are you getting that from?
> 
> Just because Scottish voters voted SNP does not mean that those issues weren't considered.
> It was made perfectly plain to anyone who actually wanted to listen that the SNP was about much more than Scottish Nationalism.


Well, I just assumed that we're just slagging everyone who didn't vote for labour? 
You don't need to tell me why Scotland voted SNP. I live here. I voted here. However, hand on heart with no shame I can admit that when choosing who to vote for I didn't consider hunting laws for a second. Just like many many other people who voted.


----------



## Guest

Ang2 said:


> Yes they did! Under the guise of 'kids should know where their meat comes from'


The thread is there for people to read 

It was "kids should know where their *food* comes from." Not all kids eat meat


----------



## silvi

shadowmare said:


> Well, I just assumed that we're just slagging everyone who didn't vote for labour?


I think you will find very few, if any, Labour supporters on this thread who 'slagged off' SNP voters.
I also think you will find that some of us Labour supporters have been pretty damn courteous to Tory supporters (at least those who used their brains to make their voting choice anyway).


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> With some of the scammers I've seen, that isn't necessarily bad . I've seen more cheating the system than needing the system, and *those that need it due to illness (not just hard times) have got the help they needed*.


But that's the point. In their rush to please the populous by 'making an example of scammers', the Tories have brought in new tests which many truly disabled people are failing.

But have you really seen _so_ many 'scammers' Rona? Or are some of them simply people _you_ think are 'undeserving'?


----------



## LinznMilly

ouesi said:


> Link:
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/rabbiting-with-dogs.396716/
> 
> Nobody defended ripping rabbits to bits, it was mostly a conversation about kids knowing where their food comes from.
> 
> Not comment on the election or UK politics, I was just reading this thread trying to educate myself, and noticed something about a thread I had participated in. Thought I'd clarify for anyone wondering .


Thanks Ouesi. 

I'll ll read that thread when I get a chance tomorrow, but right now I'm going to try and go back to sleep (no emoticons for using mobiles  ) :yawn .


----------



## rona

silvi said:


> But that's the point. In their rush to please the populous by 'making an example of scammers', the Tories have brought in new tests which many truly disabled people are failing.
> 
> But have you really seen _so_ many 'scammers' Rona? Or are some of them simply people _you_ think are 'undeserving'?


I've known them very very well.
The man who used the system for 20 years so he could abuse his step daughter, then when she left sold his council house that he's bought with just a few years working in the construction industry ( after 20 years of having a bad back!) and is now living it up in France!!!

The two girls who admit that they didn't want to work so started popping out kids, got a flats and then houses, probably still are if they've popped a few more kids. One actually lived with her working boyfriend but didn't tell the benefits people because she would have lost benefits.

The endless men that don't pay child suport because they've either fiddled the books or work cash in hand

That's all the time while single people who have fallen on hard times are given no help at all. I'm pissed off about paying for people kids.
I'm also pissed off about enabling people who aren't really ill to convince themselves they are while the truly sick have to suffer because of their selfishness


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> I've known them very very well.
> The man who used the system for 20 years so he could abuse his step daughter, then when she left sold his council house that he's bought with just a few years working in the construction industry ( after 20 years of having a bad back!) and is now living it up in France!!!
> 
> The two girls who admit that they didn't want to work so started popping out kids, got a flats and then houses, probably still are if they've popped a few more kids. One actually lived with her working boyfriend but didn't tell the benefits people because she would have lost benefits.
> 
> The endless men that don't pay child suport because they've either fiddled the books or work cash in hand
> 
> That's all the time while single people who have fallen on hard times are given no help at all. I'm pissed off about paying for people kids.
> I'm also pissed off about enabling people who aren't really ill to convince themselves they are while the truly sick have to suffer because of their selfishness


*The kind of people you are talking about rona are the minority. Do you think it is fair or right that the whole country should suffer because of a few? I find it very strange that people still keep going on about the benefit scammers, but not the rich scammers.*


----------



## sarybeagle

silvi said:


> But that's the point. In their rush to please the populous by 'making an example of scammers', the Tories have brought in new tests which many truly disabled people are failing.


100%. Rona ive certainly not got the help I need.
Ive currently got an income of £84 a month (pip) my medication a month costs me £48 (+ more if I need extras or over the counter remedies)
My prescriptions aren't free. So I'm left with v little at the moment. Hopefully when/if my ESA is awarded I'll then have £240 a month. 
A drop of £1500 (average) monthly income from when I was working.

This is only after several assessments to see if I'm disabled enough, that I fulfill enough points criteria. Then if I have the misfortune of being put in the work related activity group I'll have to attend interviews and prove I'm looking for work or my money will be sanctioned.

I'm already attending a work interview weds. 
They rang yesterday and want me to attend Monday on a 4 hour introduction to work workshop....I only had the assessment 3 days ago there.

Never mind the neurologist. Dr team of physios I'm seeing and pain clinic consultant have all said I'm currently unfit for work, it will have a detrimental impact on my condition, the DWP deem me well enough to look for a job.

Am I better off under the Tories and their axe swinging benefit cuts. No. Am I scared. Yes


----------



## rona

JANICE199 said:


> *The kind of people you are talking about rona are the minority. Do you think it is fair or right that the whole country should suffer because of a few? I find it very strange that people still keep going on about the benefit scammers, but not the rich scammers.*


You didn't read my last sentence



sarybeagle said:


> 100%. Rona ive certainly not got the help I need.
> Ive currently got an income of £84 a month (pip) my medication a month costs me £48 (+ more if I need extras or over the counter remedies)
> My prescriptions aren't free. So I'm left with v little at the moment. Hopefully when/if my ESA is awarded I'll then have £240 a month.
> A drop of £1500 (average) monthly income from when I was working.
> 
> This is only after several assessments to see if I'm disabled enough, that I fulfill enough points criteria. Then if I have the misfortune of being put in the work related activity group I'll have to attend interviews and prove I'm looking for work or my money will be sanctioned.
> 
> I'm already attending a work interview weds.
> They rang yesterday and want me to attend Monday on a 4 hour introduction to work workshop....I only had the assessment 3 days ago there.
> 
> Never mind the neurologist. Dr team of physios I'm seeing and pain clinic consultant have all said I'm currently unfit for work, it will have a detrimental impact on my condition, the DWP deem me well enough to look for a job.
> 
> Am I better off under the Tories and their axe swinging benefit cuts. No. Am I scared. Yes


Were you on benefits under Labour?
You are exactly the type of person I was talking about,the person who has to suffer because of those that scam the system.
What are they supposed to do to stop the abuse of the system?

the people I know are more secure now than they ever were under Labour. It was also Labour that introduced these test in the first place...........don't forget that!!


----------



## Goblin

cheekyscrip said:


> What is important now for us..for Europe we are part of..for unity of Britain..is the referendum on Europe..


If/when it happens it will have a major effect. Unfortunately I have been testing myself on the German Citizen Test as the EU is often used as a scapegoat for the UK's problems. I see England standing alone in the not so distant future where it can't blame problems on everyone else.


----------



## shetlandlover

rona said:


> What are they supposed to do to stop the abuse of the system?


Exactly...

As a child I was brought up in "poor" areas....a lot of the people used having children as a way to avoid work. Many of them made up illnesses, sold stolen items or drugs ect as a way to have more money and still manage to be at home doing nothing.

Why have 5-6 kids without working a day in your life and know the benefit system has to support them.. it's not fair to the kids either.

My mum has many illnesses but before she got sick she never could hold a job... for me it was hard, my mum always told me to resent people who had more than we did (including my dad/dads family) because money made them "snobs" and "Stuck up"...my mum would never have enough money to take me places, we couldn't afford birthday parties, if I needed new school clothes I had to ask my dads family to get them for me.

It was horrid....mostly because I had a lot of normal kid things taken from me....but my mum could afford to buy ****, pay £200 a month phone bills and go to Ann summers one a month to buy her new stuff...

When we moved to a rough area in Preston I came across many, many people just like my mum...who decided a life on benefits was for them. Their kids didn't get certain things BUT some how they always managed to fund smoking, drinking, drugs, brand new TVs and cars....this is what the tories want to stop....as the kids then grow up and not know what working really means.


----------



## Satori

@Goblin @cheekyscrip We're staying in Europe. Do the maths. Most of those who just voted labour will vote stay, nearly all SNP voters, all LD voters... Let's say all the UKIPpers and half the Tories vote to go, it won't be enough to secure a majority in the referendum. Cameron's offer of a referendum is just a political anti-UKIP trick and a lever to negotiate with Merkel. Hopefully, a year from now he will have enough collateral to face off his nuttier far-right back benchers; they will debate about the wording of the question and the way the votes are counted. His going in position should be half the eligible population, rather than half those who vote; that'd make it impossible to leave. But if he makes it open season on campaign funging then however it is run though the campaign to stay will overwhelm that to go and most people will, by then, understand the true economic dynamics of the question. @MoggyBaby , when will you start the 2017, EU referendum poll?


----------



## Muze

Have to admit, until I started mixing with local people, I didn't realise that so many people were 'playing the system' in one way or another. 

In our family, being on benefits is quite a shameful thing, I'd never openly admit it in person, but you know, being ill and having to wage war with my mind and body wasn't exactly part of my career plan and ultmately, my goal is the same as everyone else's, to survive, and if I need the welfare system for that then so be it. 

I have no issue being reassessed as often as necessary, so long as the assessments are fair and doctors' recommendations are acknowledged. 
I have no issue attending work related activities, in fact I go voluntarily to JCP, but they have nothing to offer me and many are unable or unwilling to accommodate my needs. 

Cutting the benefits of the disabled won't make 'the problem' go away, it will simply create different, equally expensive, problems. 
Invest in people, tackle discrimination, improve support services.... that's what needed IMO. 

There are a hell of a lot of very frightened sick and disabled folk in UK today


----------



## Ang2

_If it hadn't been for the far left 'apologists' for work shy scroungers, this country wouldn't be in the state its in! I remember a time when people went to the job centre to sign on, without question or hassle,, and that's how the welfare state grew under labour. Those of you who are genuinely in need, should stop apologising for the shirkers! Youre in this position because of them!_


----------



## JANICE199

Ang2 said:


> _If it hadn't been for the far left 'apologists' for work shy scroungers, this country wouldn't be in the state its in! I remember a time when people went to the job centre to sign on, without question or hassle,, and that's how the welfare state grew under labour. Those of you who are genuinely in need, should stop apologising for the shirkers! Youre in this position because of them!_


*But that isn't true. It is the fault of a greedy evil government. But people will continue to blame the wrong in our society.*


----------



## Ang2

64% of the population claim benefits of a kind. Do the maths!


----------



## JANICE199

Ang2 said:


> 64% of the population claim benefits of a kind. Do the maths!


*That doesn't mean that they are all shirkers, or even a large amount of them are.*


----------



## Ang2

See what I mean Janice! Its a huge amount and growing. If that figure was, say 90%, you would say the same. More people taking out than paying in? And you think that's sustainable?



JANICE199 said:


> *That doesn't mean that they are all shirkers, or even a large amount of them are.*


----------



## sarybeagle

rona said:


> Were you on benefits under Labour?
> You are exactly the type of person I was talking about,the person who has to suffer because of those that scam the system.
> What are they supposed to do to stop the abuse of the system?


No, this is my first time claiming benefits bar child benefit. Ive worked 14 years, my son is 16 so his entire life ive been full time working often only seeing him for breakfast and a kiss when I got home and he was asleep in bed.



Muze said:


> I have no issue being reassessed as often as necessary, so long as the assessments are fair and doctors' recommendations are acknowledged.
> I have no issue attending work related activities, in fact I go voluntarily to JCP, but they have nothing to offer me and many are unable or unwilling to accommodate my needs.
> 
> There are a hell of a lot of very frightened sick and disabled folk in UK today


Being assessed is something ive accepted as part of the process in applying and then being granted benefits. 
That said when the PIP assesor decides she wants to view no medical evidence or have any put in with her report as she makes her own mind up on peoples eligibility you can't help but be upset. 
Each assessment has been over an hour long, involving physical examination which causes me pain and fatigue but I do it. One assessment was 84 miles away. They require someone to come with me as I can't wheel myself across roads/kerbs etc. 
I'm being made to attend work based interviews BEFORE being grouped in wrag. I only had ESA assessment 3 days ago!! Do I feel hounded and persecuted. Yes. Am I scared its going to get worse. Yes! 
Is it really worth my sanity and condition worsening to keep trying holding on to these claims, worth £21 a week. I dont know.


----------



## emmaviolet

The tories are scrapping the human rights act, so the disabled (yes even those who are genuine and should be entitled to things) will not be protected.
There will be no protection of the poor, the weak or even those in jobs with a minimum wage.


----------



## Pawscrossed

A genuinely brilliant article on ways to make positive contributions to the many who will be affected by the Tories. Recommended reading
http://classonline.org.uk/blog/item/five-ways-to-deal-with-a-full-blown-conservative-government


----------



## cheekyscrip

From the perspective of other European countries , others England is a benefit paradise. That is true, sadly so do not blame benefit seekers...Taxpayers might be happy to fund roads, health care , education.

But not the lifestyle of feckeless yobs
So uni fee are growing and hard working families cannot afford to send their children to uni?
But others get accommodation 
and so on for free.

The whole culture of sponging...That must be stopped. Then you complain that so many jobs go to foreigners.

Lots of them those on benefit will laugh at. Hard work, moderately paid? Changing adult nappies? No thank you! Much nicer to be home with babies.
Then': take from the rich.
Why anyone however well off should pay for kids you wanted to have?

Help should be given to those who fell on hard times by not their fault. 

Many blame EU for all problems.
Goblin is right ..go out of 
Europe..then see whom you will blame.


----------



## Ang2

No they are not! They are scrapping humans rights so that foreign criminals, rapists and murderers cant use the Human Rights Act to milk the legal system and avoid deportation.



emmaviolet said:


> The tories are scrapping the human rights act, so the disabled (yes even those who are genuine and should be entitled to things) will not be protected.
> There will be no protection of the poor, the weak or even those in jobs with a minimum wage.


----------



## emmaviolet

Ang2 said:


> No they are not! They are scrapping humans rights so that foreign criminals, rapists and murderers cant use the Human Rights Act to milk the legal system and avoid deportation.


No they are scrapping them in general, for everyone. So yes that's one aspect, but so is everyone else's use of it, like the right to a fair trial. The whole act for everyone.


----------



## silvi

Pawscrossed said:


> A genuinely brilliant article on ways to make positive contributions to the many who will be affected by the Tories. Recommended reading
> http://classonline.org.uk/blog/item/five-ways-to-deal-with-a-full-blown-conservative-government


Excellent article.
Thanks for linking to it.


----------



## negative creep

emmaviolet said:


> No they are scrapping them in general, for everyone. So yes that's one aspect, but so is everyone else's use of it, like the right to a fair trial. The whole act for everyone.


And it's being replaced by a similar Act that will enshrine rights such as a fair trial. That's one of the conerstones of democracy so no party would ever try and remove it


----------



## rona

emmaviolet said:


> The tories are scrapping the human rights act, so the disabled (yes even those who are genuine and should be entitled to things) will not be protected.
> There will be no protection of the poor, the weak or even those in jobs with a minimum wage.


They are having a British bill of rights

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...rom-the-human-rights-act-to-a-bill-of-rights/

"Proposals for a British Bill of Rights have come from across the political spectrum"

"In 2007 the Labour Government began to consult on building on the Human Rights Act to create a Bill of Rights. Other political parties have also called for a Bill of Rights. There are consequently various models for such a document, each of which has a significantly different meaning"

"A Bill of Rights might also be brought forward together with a new written constitution. This could entrench constitutional legislation and allow the courts to rule legislation unlawful. Gordon Brown raised the possibility that such a document might be published in time for the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015".

Again a Labour suggestion implemented by a party with balls


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

emmaviolet said:


> The tories are scrapping the human rights act, so the disabled (yes even those who are genuine and should be entitled to things) will not be protected.
> There will be no protection of the poor, the weak or even those in jobs with a minimum wage.


Oh do stop scaremongering. They have promised to increase the minimum wage to £8 by the end of the decade not reduce it, they have promised an extra £8 billion per year for the NHS by 2020 (more than labour did), to take everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of income tax, to freeze the TV licence fee, to prevent rises in income tax, VAT and national insurance, protect pensioner benefits such as free bus passes and the winter fuel payments etc. As for the Human Rights Act, good riddance, its been exploited for too long by criminals and terrorists making a mockery of our laws.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Pawscrossed said:


> A genuinely brilliant article on ways to make positive contributions to the many who will be affected by the Tories. Recommended reading
> http://classonline.org.uk/blog/item/five-ways-to-deal-with-a-full-blown-conservative-government


Good article I like some of that, I think some members of this forum need to practice the how to be kind bit and stop attacking people who don't think exactly the same as them.


----------



## emmaviolet

negative creep said:


> And it's being replaced by a similar Act that will enshrine rights such as a fair trial. That's one of the conerstones of democracy so no party would ever try and remove it


Yes, one policed by the same government.

he thing is, when there is no external party to appeal to and this country treats you unfairly there's nowhere to go, nobody ill be concerned as you will be appealing to the very people who abolished it.

Ang, don't believe everything you read in the press (also controlled by the right) as the cases against terror are few and far between, the rights protect you from being tortured, being imprisoned without a trial.

I will now step back from this argument, genuinely, those who are happy with all of this just remember the quote I posted earlier in the thread, the first they came, it's true for everyone in the country and world, just think about it for a while and digest it. There are a lot, a lot of people petrified in this country at the minute.
If not just prey your vote doesn't swing around and kick you in your own backside.


----------



## Ang2

I know you are a good person, and honestly, we have most of the same values. I care about animals, the old, the poor and the sick. The only difference is that I truly believe that if this welfare state continues as it is, it will collapse, and there will be nothing for anyone as the country will be bankrupt. A welfare state should be supported by the majority, not the minority.

Don't leave this discussion. Just because people differ, doesn't mean they cant join in..



emmaviolet said:


> Yes, one policed by the same government.
> 
> he thing is, when there is no external party to appeal to and this country treats you unfairly there's nowhere to go, nobody ill be concerned as you will be appealing to the very people who abolished it.
> 
> Ang, don't believe everything you read in the press (also controlled by the right) as the cases against terror are few and far between, the rights protect you from being tortured, being imprisoned without a trial.
> 
> I will now step back from this argument, genuinely, those who are happy with all of this just remember the quote I posted earlier in the thread, the first they came, it's true for everyone in the country and world, just think about it for a while and digest it. There are a lot, a lot of people petrified in this country at the minute.
> If not just prey your vote doesn't swing around and kick you in your own backside.


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> I've known them very very well.
> The man who used the system for 20 years so he could abuse his step daughter, then when she left sold his council house that he's bought with just a few years working in the construction industry ( after 20 years of having a bad back!) and is now living it up in France!!!
> 
> The two girls who admit that they didn't want to work so started popping out kids, got a flats and then houses, probably still are if they've popped a few more kids. One actually lived with her working boyfriend but didn't tell the benefits people because she would have lost benefits.
> 
> The endless men that don't pay child suport because they've either fiddled the books or work cash in hand
> 
> That's all the time while single people who have fallen on hard times are given no help at all. I'm pissed off about paying for people kids.
> I'm also pissed off about enabling people who aren't really ill to convince themselves they are while the truly sick have to suffer because of their selfishness


Thanks for answering me Rona. I had a feeling that you weren't the type of person to accuse people of things without having evidence to back it up.

What I will say though is:

First, men who don't pay child support can hardly be given as an example of benefit cheats - cheats yes, scum often, but not actually _benefit_ cheats.

Second, the man who bought his council house and then sold it to live in France.... I have said on other threads that I thought it was wrong to sell off council houses - but this was started under Thatcher, so that part of the example about him is not good in my eyes, but doesn't really fit in with benefit cheating; neither does him 'living it up' in France, as Brits cannot legally claim benefits if living abroad.

As to girls 'popping out kids so they can live on benefits'. We all probably know of women who are living on benefits and have children, but I wonder just how many of them really 'popped out a kid or two' just to get benefits? If so, they must have very low life expectations, as living on benefits with kids is not exactly easy.

And in this sense, I would say that _the few_ that carry on claiming when a boyfriend moves in are only doing this because either: they think that the relationship will not last and are afraid of losing their benefits and being unable to claim them again; or have so little money that (rightly or wrongly) they want a few months of not having to scrimp on every penny.
Neither of those examples is 'right', but understandable, especially when, at the other end of the scale, there are people who have so much money that these women's benefits are but a miniscule speck when compared to their accumulated wealth.

As to single people who get nothing - I agree. It's wrong. But this has been the way of all governments and their legislation and could certainly be considered as something which needs to be addressed. Would you like to have a bet with me as to whether or not the Tories are likely to consider this?

'Enabling people who aren't really ill to convince themselves they are'.... I think you need to be more specific on this. Are you saying that some people are encouraged to believe they are ill, when they are not? And that this has been government policy?
If so, I don't think that any government has intended for this to be so.
But perhaps you have examples of this?

Finally, just to pick up on your statement: "I'm pissed off about paying for peoples kids".
I think many people are pissed off about this, but for different reasons.
Many appear to have the view that certain members of the population should not produce kids at all. Are you one of those people? And if so, which members of the population would you consider 'adequate' to produce kids?
Others link this to the population crisis. That's a whole other issue, but it does tend to influence their views on this whole subject.
But yes....that's a whole other issue.....

Anyway.
Sorry it took so long to reply to your answer, but I've been working in between writing.
And thanks for taking the time to reply to mine.


----------



## shetlandlover

The human rights act is not always a good thing....

My autistic little brother couldn't have any of his school injections because he couldn't tell them it was okay...we were told that it would be against his human rights to vaccinate him.....but it's okay if he gets meningitis. 

They also refused to blood test him for the genetic blood problem both me and my mother have because it would be against his human rights....but it's okay if he gets a deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.


----------



## Satori

cheekyscrip said:


> The whole culture of sponging...That must be stopped. Then you complain that so many jobs go to foreigners.
> 
> Lots of them those on benefit will laugh at. Hard work, moderately paid? Changing adult nappies? No thank you!


Quite. "There is no such thing as a lousy job - only lousy men who don't care to do it."


----------



## Goblin

JANICE199 said:


> *The kind of people you are talking about rona are the minority. Do you think it is fair or right that the whole country should suffer because of a few? I find it very strange that people still keep going on about the benefit scammers, but not the rich scammers.*


Funny how so many people know people like it if it is such a minority. There are only a minority of rich bankers but they are the excuse to hit the "rich". Without a shakeup and an acknowledgement of the problems at both ends of the wealth scale (although rich is generally accepted) resentment will continually grow. What is wrong with admitting simply throwing money at the jobless/disabled isn't the best solution? Surely the best solution is ensuring appropriate help gets to those who need it, making sure the method of targeting is correct and encouraging and helping others into the workforce?


----------



## JANICE199

Goblin said:


> Funny how so many people know people like it if it is such a minority. There are only a minority of rich bankers but they are the excuse to hit the "rich". Without a shakeup and an acknowledgement of the problems at both ends of the wealth scale (although rich is generally accepted) resentment will continually grow. What is wrong with admitting simply throwing money at the jobless/disabled isn't the best solution? Surely the best solution is ensuring appropriate help gets to those who need it, making sure the method of targeting is correct and encouraging and helping others into the workforce?


*I don't think that throwing money at anyone is the solution. And yes those that need help should get it. But the FACT is, those that need the help the most are NOT getting it. Why? because people have set their minds to thinking that everyone out of work likes it that way, so they can scam the country.*
*Is it just a coincidence that we have no end of propaganda programs like benefit street and the like? No we have been fed crap and people are falling for it. We now have a selfish society, with the attitude, i'm alright Jack, sod the rest.:Jawdrop*


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Funny how so many people know people like it if it is such a minority. There are only a minority of rich bankers but they are the excuse to hit the "rich". Without a shakeup and an acknowledgement of the problems at both ends of the wealth scale (although rich is generally accepted) resentment will continually grow. What is wrong with admitting simply throwing money at the jobless/disabled isn't the best solution? Surely the best solution is ensuring appropriate help gets to those who need it, making sure the method of targeting is correct and encouraging and helping others into the workforce?


But how many people think they know someone like this until they actually accept that they are not scroungers at all?

And as to 'the minority of rich bankers' compared to those at the other end of the wealth scale, surely that's the point? If that minority has so much money that 'benefit cheating' debts (when they are actually genuine) pale in comparison, then there has to be something totally wrong with our society.

But I agree with your point about help to those who need it and helping those who can work get back into the workplace.

The problem is that the only work available to the majority of people on JSA is temporary, zero-hours contract work.

And however the Tories try to spin this in terms of statistics (as Cameron tried to do when pressed on this point) or in terms of helping employers free up work for the unemployed, the reality is that zero hours contracts do not work to take people off of benefits, because people with families to provide for have too much to lose in taking them.


----------



## Happy Paws2

silvi said:


> But I agree with your point about help to those who need it and helping those who can work get back into the workplace.


That all well done, but where are all the jobs coming from, more companies are closing down or not taking people on.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> If that minority has so much money that 'benefit cheating' debts (when they are actually genuine) pale in comparison, then there has to be something totally wrong with our society.


I don't believe it's simply money. It's the insistence that these people don't exist whilst people know they do which sets dividing lines and causes people to take sides. I don't compare welfare costs with tax income as that is not the real issue. The issue is making best use of the money available and a trying to make a society where those who contribute to society or those unable to contribute are looked after and gain more than those who choose not to.

I doubt is anyone here is a millionaire but I'm shocked that being able to actually become a self made millionaire is something to be ashamed of. That actually working hard enough to be able to employ others is something to avoid.



> The problem is that the only work available to the majority of people on JSA is temporary, zero-hours contract work


Which labour could argue if they didn't use them. It's not simply a need to identify problems, it's actually having workable solutions.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> I don't believe it's simply money. It's the insistence that these people don't exist whilst people know they do which sets dividing lines and causes people to take sides. I don't compare welfare costs with tax income as that is not the real issue. The issue is making best use of the money available and a trying to make a society where those who contribute to society or those unable to contribute are looked after and gain more than those who choose not to.
> 
> I doubt is anyone here is a millionaire but I'm shocked that being able to actually become a self made millionaire is something to be ashamed of. That actually working hard enough to be able to employ others is something to avoid.
> 
> Which labour could argue if they didn't use them. It's not simply a need to identify problems, it's actually having workable solutions.


I actually agree with all of this. 
But...... (lol!)

Personally, I have no problem with self-made millionaires and welcome them, if they then contribute to society by paying taxes and offering real jobs to workers. The problem is that some have made their money by bucking the system (just like benefit cheats are supposed to do) and others look to ways to avoid paying tax rather than pay something back.

But most of all, I dislike the 'anyone can be a millionaire' ethos of the 80s, because not only did it turn us into a service industry nation, but it also made anyone who doesn't 'improve' their lot appear to be a failure.

But yes, as to zero hours contracts, it is no good simply outlawing them without putting something in their place, but Labour were actually offering a solution - the ability to claim a permanent job after working for 3 months at zero hours.
Not ideal, but better than the Tories pretending that it wasn't a problem.


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Oh do stop scaremongering. They have promised to increase the minimum wage to £8 by the end of the decade not reduce it, they have promised an extra £8 billion per year for the NHS by 2020 (more than labour did), to take everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of income tax, to freeze the TV licence fee, to prevent rises in income tax, VAT and national insurance, protect pensioner benefits such as free bus passes and the winter fuel payments etc. As for the Human Rights Act, good riddance, its been exploited for too long by criminals and terrorists making a mockery of our laws.


Our NHS is finished RPH ( only a treacherous government would get rid of our Human Rights.)

*We Tried.*

*I won't lie, I feel pretty abject today. So many hopes shattered, so many people now entering frightening unknowns, feeling insecure, threatened, battle-weary; so much disappointment, so many careers dashed and prospects ruined.

This is the reality which a whole nation of healthcare workers woke up to this morning. Because we the Left could not persuade you the voting public what was at stake yesterday. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry we could not speak over the volume of a right-wing press complicit in the dismantling of our greatest public service. We could not persuade the BBC to give you the facts, or ask the government the right questions on your behalf.

Lacking all conviction, we tried. We tried to spell it out. Four years ago 400 health professionals and experts publically condemned the Health and Social Care Act, hoping to get your attention, saying the Bill would "erode the NHS's ethical and cooperative foundations, and [would] not deliver efficiency, quality, fairness or choice". You ignored them.

Since then countless experts not driven by political ambition - the BMA, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing- havepleadedwith the government to think again. They have all been dismissed by the government, which knew better.

And those professionals who pleaded for mercy have since seen their budgets squeezed, pay frozen, wards shut and services fragmented. The "moral economy" which once gave NHS hospitals "almost a family atmosphere", to quote a nurse I spoke to recently, has been well and truly bankrupted. And to add bitter insult to injury, staff have endured five years of malignant, defamatory attacks from a right-wing press that has no compunction about blaming nurses and doctors for the decisions of their political masters. You scarcely blinked.

Last Summer, a group of mothers from Darlington**marched from Jarrow to London**, all for you, to get your attention. Some people noticed; I remember the man who screamed "****ing ****s" from his white van as he drove past, butyouturned the other way as they walked past your door.

I and far more illustrious journalists wrote article after article, pointing out the**flaws of outsourcing healthcare**, of the gross false-economies you get when you try to treat healthcare as a market and why privatisation evangelicals don't tell the truth about the hidden costs of outsourcing medicine.

I tried to point out that while the government would never admit a piecemeal privatisation of the NHS was happening, the facts reveal a different story. Off the top of my head, there was a 500% increase in the value of contracts won by the private sector between 2013/14 and 2014/15, and when the Tories and the Lib Dems took over in 2010, £291 million worth of contracts went to private providers; last year this had risen to £9.6bn. It never made a dent.

I tried to explain how the government was arranging it so that it could**close wards, services and hospitals on financial grounds**, even if they were delivering perfect health care. Even how our involvement in the EU was gravely**threatening our public services**.

I put together a list of 50 quotes about the NHS and the way it was changing, in the hope that if you wouldn't take it from me, you might listen to Stephen Hawking, Owen Jones, senior doctors, politicians and healthcare campaigners. I even**wrote a list of 10 questions**that were curiously absent whenever Jeremy Hunt or David Cameron were 'grilled' on the NHS, and sent it to the BBC (directly to one of the current Newsnight reporters I know).

I wrote down in black & white how morale was reaching**non-existent levels**, and that nurses were screaming out for the public**to vote to support them yesterday**. Deaf ears.

Thousands of campaigners rallied, spoke, protested in broad daylight. Somehow, you never saw them. They spoke out on TV whenever they were allowed, they wrote to their MPs. A group of doctors and nurses even**formed their own political party**and ran in the election.

Story after story screamed back at you from the TV set, telling uncomfortable truths about the worst A&E figures on record; pay freezes for nurses and HCAs; hospitals falling into the red; budgets under pressure; GPs unable to cope; hundreds of millions of Pounds of your money being wasted on emergency medical staff; patients being treated in tents in hospital car parks.

But none of that matters now. It all came down to yesterday. It's not just that the Conservatives won - it's the nature of the defeat

With an out-and-out majority, the Tories can claim vindication from the public on all of its actions, even the ones it carried out insidiously, without a mandate. With furious intensity, the Conservative Party will press ahead with its 'reforms' of the welfare state, local government, education and the NHS, and it will assume a mandate to cut brutally at the state and shrink back our public services even more.

Labour would have repealed the Health & Social Care Act, and had pledged to limit the role of private healthcare in the NHS. It had the funds to create 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 more doctors and 3,000 more midwives all ready to go. They just needed your support.

The Green Party had been even more honest about what the NHS needed, and had**backed a Bill just before the election**which spelled out in black & white exactly how the NHS could be restored.

But this is all academic now. The grand plan is almost complete: the legislation is in place, the auction of public assets has already begun and the oligarchs of the British state are huddled, cheque-books in hand. Get ready for your GP appointments being charged (mark my words), even fewer drugs being covered by the NHS subsidy, and billions more of our taxpayer money being converted into private profit.

These are just the first steps along a one-way street to an insurance-based market modeled on the US system. We were already well down that road, but yesterday marked the blocking off of all other routes.

Noam Chomksy said that the "standard technique of privatisation", is to "defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, [then] you hand it over to private capital". And with the Tory victory, the real puppet-masters like Oliver Letwin, author of the bookPrivatising the World, can get back to work and finish what they started.

It's done. I'm sorry. We tried.
*


----------



## Guest

silvi said:


> But most of all, I dislike the 'anyone can be a millionaire' ethos of the 80s, because not only did it turn us into a service industry nation, but it also made anyone who doesn't 'improve' their lot appear to be a failure.


Oh gosh I could not agree more.
I have no interest in amassing a fortune. I work hard for what I have, and I KNOW those CEOs making 500 times as much as I do are not working 500 times harder. 
I used to live in CT, working for the super rich keeping their horses. I was shoveling shit (literally) up at 4am often not home until past 9pm working hard at physical labor all those hours. Meanwhile my mom worked as an assistant to the uber-rich and again, I KNOW they weren't working harder than her. They just knew to make sure they had a PO box in the Cayman Islands so they could keep all their profits and evade taxes legally.

The rich did not become rich through hard work, and certainly not by following the rules or being ethical.


----------



## StormyThai

Goblin said:


> Funny how so many people know people like it if it is such a minority. There are only a minority of rich bankers but they are the excuse to hit the "rich". Without a shakeup and an acknowledgement of the problems at both ends of the wealth scale (although rich is generally accepted) resentment will continually grow. What is wrong with admitting simply throwing money at the jobless/disabled isn't the best solution? *Surely the best solution is ensuring appropriate help gets to those who need it, making sure the method of targeting is correct and encouraging and helping others into the workforce?*


Yeah looks like that's just the plan...NOT!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html

Yay go Tories, lets cut the support disabled people need to get into work :Mooning


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

ouesi said:


> Oh gosh I could not agree more.
> I have no interest in amassing a fortune. I work hard for what I have, and I KNOW those CEOs making 500 times as much as I do are not working 500 times harder.
> I used to live in CT, working for the super rich keeping their horses. I was shoveling shit (literally) up at 4am often not home until past 9pm working hard at physical labor all those hours. Meanwhile my mom worked as an assistant to the uber-rich and again, I KNOW they weren't working harder than her. They just knew to make sure they had a PO box in the Cayman Islands so they could keep all their profits and evade taxes legally.
> 
> The rich did not become rich through hard work, and certainly not by following the rules or being ethical.


Some rich people but not all rich people. Take my FIL for instance (now departed). He was a very wealthy man, lived in a house overlooking Poole Harbour, sent two kids to private school, holidays on the QE2 every year but he started out from a poor background, his father died when he was 5 and he was brought up by his mother - not easy in the 1920's when there was no welfare state. He didn't get in to grammer school but still managed by hard work and taking every opportunity offered to him to improve his life and that of his mother. He worked very hard to make his money and I find it sad that so many people in this country automatically resent anyone who has a strong work ethic, its like inverted snobbery. He was a tough father to my OH, nothing handed to him on a plate, he loaned us a couple of thousand pounds for the deposit on our first house and charged us 3% above the bank rate of interest on it. Despite going to public school my OH left with nothing more than a few O'levels and did a few low paid jobs before deciding to go back to school at 24 and study until he was 30 to get the qualifications he needed for his chosen career. We need to help people re train and gain skills needed for the jobs that are out there but when you have created a system that means working means taking a cut in income because your benefits are higher than low paid jobs you know something has to change.

Noush the NHS is not finished. If you need an ambulance tomorrow you will get one - without having to show insurance papers or pay any money, if you have an accident you will be treated and operated on if necessary and if you have cancer you will still get your treatment free of charge. There may be some tinkering going on and perhaps we do have to face up to change which we all know is scary but the NHS is not dead/finished and I think its a bit irresponsible to keep saying it is. We have private insurance (which actually costs less for two adults than our dogs insurance per month) but the last two times we have needed anything it has been quicker and easier to use the NHS.


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Noush the NHS is not finished. If you need an ambulance tomorrow you will get one - without having to show insurance papers or pay any money, if you have an accident you will be treated and operated on if necessary and if you have cancer you will still get your treatment free of charge. There may be some tinkering going on and perhaps we do have to face up to change which we all know is scary but the NHS is not dead/finished and I think its a bit irresponsible to keep saying it is. We have private insurance (which actually costs less for two adults than our dogs insurance per month) but the last two times we have needed anything it has been quicker and easier to use the NHS.


If you need an ambulance tomorrow you will get one......but it may get to you too late because your nearest ambulance station has been closed down and staff have been laid off.

If you have cancer, you will still get treatment free of charge, same with most other illnesses, but it will depend on a postcode lottery as to what treatment you get and how quickly you will get results to essential tests.

Private insurance is fine if you can afford it. But to many people it is not that cheap, because they will already have health conditions which are either not covered at all, or for which they will have to pay a highly-inflated premium.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> Personally, I have no problem with self-made millionaires and welcome them, if they then contribute to society by paying taxes and offering real jobs to workers. The problem is that some have made their money by bucking the system (just like benefit cheats are supposed to do) and others look to ways to avoid paying tax rather than pay something back.


Yet nobody denies these people exist saying it's all propaganda. Once again people push the fact that the rich haven't been hit under the tories but they have. The people who haven't been hit are the middle.



> But most of all, I dislike the 'anyone can be a millionaire' ethos of the 80s, because not only did it turn us into a service industry nation, but it also made anyone who doesn't 'improve' their lot appear to be a failure.


I don't know about others but my own personal experience is management is an old boys network. Much like the politicians of the two main parties. Deals are frequently made on the golf course, not based on quality and cost effectiveness. Is labour different from the tories in that? Past experience says not.



> Not ideal, but better than the Tories pretending that it wasn't a problem.


End of the day, people didn't trust labour to deliver on the economy as the numbers didn't seem to add up or they judged from past experience. I do think people still feel betrayed by Blair. Add in nationalism, the SNP pushing nationalism as an agenda, what is seen as a weak leader and ...

No perfect solution or party. Question shouldn't now about name calling. It's where do people go from here.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

shetlandlover said:


> I know emotions are quite high but I don't think it's fair for posts attacking people for voting for who they've voted for.
> 
> Voting is a right held by all and people should be able to vote and voice their vote without feeling attacked or insulted.


Agreed.



Pawscrossed said:


> How many voted because of the leader and not the policies - thanks to the media it's becoming more like a presidential Americanised race. No word of a lie, a lady at work said 'Oh I'm glad it's Cameron he's much nicer than Milliband", to which my colleague asked if she supported fracking and fox hunting and apparently she doesn't. Didn't actually know what the Tory policies are...


Hair. It's all about hair. Did you ever see a balding US President? I'm not even joking, they looked into it a few US elections ago and they always found that people were more likely to vote with the candidate with more hair. That's how deep some aspects of US politics are!



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Wow, pretty gross assumptions on your part. Ed Balls losing his seat shows that the public did not share your confidence in a labour government holding the purse strings. The NHS will still be here in 5 years time of that I am certain.


I would bet money that in five years, we'll be having another conversation about the state of the NHS and it will be the same: a great institution, underfunded, too many bureaucrats... but still here. I can't get my head around Labour being so good for the NHS. The Mid-Staffs crisis happened under their watch, and the NHS in Wales has had more than its fair share of problems under the Welsh Labour government these last five years.



Spellweaver said:


> But you *were* voting for fox hunting etc Hanwombat. And whether they think of themselves as pro-hunting or not, everyone else who voted conservative *was* voting to bring back fox hunting..
> 
> I can completely understand that you weighed up all the alternatives and that, for you, the conservatives best represented your views so you voted for them. Nothing at all wrong with that. But don't try to dodge the responsibility of what you chose to do.
> 
> Despite the fact that you might not agree with their policies on "fox-hunting etc",you, and everyone else who voted conservative have to take on the responsibility that you have voted in a party who is committed to increasing cruelty to animals by bringing back fox hunting. You can't dodge responsibility just because you didn't particularly like that policy of theirs. You voted for it as surely as the most ardent fox-hunting person when you put your cross next to Cameron's name.


No more so than every person voting for the Green Party wanted to legalise cannabis, or grant prisoners the right to vote. Or than every person voting Labour thought freezing energy prices until 2017 was a rocking good idea. I would assert that it's almost impossible for one party to fulfil the wishes of every single 'average' voter, because we are all individuals with different needs, circumstances and beliefs. If faced with a party who had, in your view, 9 brilliant policies and one bad one, vs another with 10 bad ones, who would you vote for?

Conservative voters did not vote (intentionally or not) to bring back foxhunting. They voted for a free vote to bring back foxhunting. A free vote that has not occurred yet and could quite easily result in a decision not to repeal the ban anyway. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Besides, with all the talk of foxhunting I have failed to see any mention of the Tories' policies on religious slaughter, which affects a much greater proportion of the animal kingdom than hunting with dogs and on a more industrial scale. Does anyone wish to comment on this? I speak as a vehement opposer of both foxhunting and non-stun slaughter, who did not vote Conservative this year but who is not, personally, unhappy with the election result.



Elles said:


> He said a lot of things, he said a lot of things last time too. He didn't say he'd reinstate hunting, he said he'd hold a free vote on it, with conservative MPs free to vote against it if they want. If it's something that is important to an individual, they need to lobby their MP, who is supposed to represent their constituents.


^ This.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> If you need an ambulance tomorrow you will get one......but it may get to you too late because your nearest ambulance station has been closed down and staff have been laid off.
> 
> If you have cancer, you will still get treatment free of charge, same with most other illnesses, but it will depend on a postcode lottery as to what treatment you get and how quickly you will get results to essential tests.
> 
> Private insurance is fine if you can afford it. But to many people it is not that cheap, because they will already have health conditions which are either not covered at all, or for which they will have to pay a highly-inflated premium.


And in labour run wales...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

silvi said:


> If you need an ambulance tomorrow you will get one......but it may get to you too late because your nearest ambulance station has been closed down and staff have been laid off.
> 
> If you have cancer, you will still get treatment free of charge, same with most other illnesses, but it will depend on a postcode lottery as to what treatment you get and how quickly you will get results to essential tests.
> 
> Private insurance is fine if you can afford it. But to many people it is not that cheap, because they will already have health conditions which are either not covered at all, or for which they will have to pay a highly-inflated premium.


I wasn't suggesting everyone can afford private health - just pointing out that it isn't as expensive as people think - less than my dogs cost to insure but used it to illustrate that the NHS was still quicker and easier to use. I can only speak as I find and perhaps our area is better than many. I don't know one person with cancer who has been denied treatment or tests in a reasonable time frame although I do accept some of the expensive life prolonging drugs are a postcode lottery. This is one of the things I think they need to review - what should and should not be available on the NHS.


----------



## Guest

rottiepointerhouse said:


> He worked very hard to make his money and I find it sad that so many people in this country automatically resent anyone who has a strong work ethic, its like inverted snobbery.


It's not the strong work ethic that's the problem. It's correlating work ethic with wealth. It's a false correlation. 
Some of the hardest working people will never be wealthy, and many (most?) of the wealthy did not become that way because of their work ethic - more like lack of ethics. 
And I'm pretty sure your FIL paid his share of taxes and didn't try to evade them.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

ouesi said:


> It's not the strong work ethic that's the problem. It's correlating work ethic with wealth. It's a false correlation.
> Some of the hardest working people will never be wealthy, and many (most?) of the wealthy did not become that way because of their work ethic - more like lack of ethics.
> And I'm pretty sure your FIL paid his share of taxes and didn't try to evade them.


Of course he did - that was the point I was making - not all wealthy people got there by treading on others and not paying their taxes any more than all people on benefits are scroungers. There are good and bad in both ends of the spectrum and good and bad in the middle too.


----------



## Guest

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Of course he did - that was the point I was making - not all wealthy people got there by treading on others and not paying their taxes any more than all people on benefits are scroungers. There are good and bad in both ends of the spectrum and good and bad in the middle too.


I never said wealthy people are *bad*. I said wealth and willingness to work hard are not necessarily correlated.
*I* have no interest in amassing wealth. Others do, and I respect that. 
But do not tell me the reason some have more money than others is because of how hard they are willing to work. Which is the underlying theme of welfare cuts. The "haves" are haves because they work hard. The "have nots" are have nots because they are lazy. It's just simply not true.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

[QUOTE="ouesi, post: 1064163697, member: 1311755"

The rich did not become rich through hard work, and certainly not by following the rules or being ethical.[/QUOTE]

This is the bit I was replying to Quesi -I was simply pointing out that not all rich people became rich by not working hard or not being ethical.


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I wasn't suggesting everyone can afford private health - just pointing out that it isn't as expensive as people think - less than my dogs cost to insure but used it to illustrate that the NHS was still quicker and easier to use. I can only speak as I find and perhaps our area is better than many. I don't know one person with cancer who has been denied treatment or tests in a reasonable time frame although I do accept some of the expensive life prolonging drugs are a postcode lottery. This is one of the things I think they need to review - what should and should not be available on the NHS.


That's fair enough.
I was speaking as I find too 
In the last few months, I have tried to comfort someone with a broken hip who waited for an ambulance for over two hours (admittedly the paramedic was there within 30 minutes, but had no way to get the woman to hospital without an ambulance. All she could do was monitor her vital signs and try to control her pain with less-than-adequate pain medication).

Someone close to me has also had to wait over 8 weeks for the result of cancer testing, when they were told that the most they would have to wait was one month. Thankfully the tests were negative, but you can imagine the distress this person (and the rest of the family) were under.

Someone else close to me has been told that she cannot receive the latest and more effective anti-osteoporosis drugs for her because they are not as, I quote, "cost effective" as others which she could take, but which would make her ill. However, a relative living in another county has just been started on the same drugs refused to the first lady because her health region has a mandate to use them....

and so on......


----------



## Bisbow

If you took every penny in the country and divided it equally between every person in the country in 12 months time you will still have people who are wealthy and people who are dirt poor.
Some will make the money work for them, some will fritter it away and then expect the rest to fund them.

And did anyone notice an awful lot of local councils have gone or stayed tory, so a lot of people have blood on their hands and got it so wrong and so few got it right.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Of course he did - that was the point I was making - not all wealthy people got there by treading on others and not paying their taxes any more than all people on benefits are scroungers. There are good and bad in both ends of the spectrum and good and bad in the middle too.


^100% agreed!

I hate the them-and-us attitude. I refuse to fit in it, and barely know where I would go anyway.

I am a professional who earns above the average annual salary for the UK. I work very hard - often in excess of 50 hours a week - and because I am salaried, overtime is unrecognised. I am not paid for 50 hours a week.

But I cannot afford a mortgage; I'm stuck in the rent trap and the insecurities that carries.
I owe almost £40K in student loans because I come from a poor background and my parents could not support me through university.
I have no other debts because I am tight with my money, but this also means I have no credit rating, which doesn't help the mortgage situation (and in fact meant I only just managed to be allowed to rent my current house).

I have an 'advance' bank account with a bunch of extra privileges I'll never use, because I don't go abroad or on holiday.

I was privately educated, so kill me now. But my parents didn't pay a penny of it, because I was educated on a scholarship for 'gifted' local children. There is no way I would have had such an education if my parents had to fund it. No way.

I am a sufferer of a chronic disease, so I am a frequent NHS user. I have also made good use of the NHS's mental health provisions over the last few years and I have to say, in this part of the country, they have been excellent. I realise this is patchy in other regions.

Am I privileged? Am I not? I don't consider myself particularly 'privileged', but I feel fortunate for the opportunities that have come my way over the years. I work hard and do not consider myself wealthy, but I do feel I earned every penny of what I am lucky enough to have - and I'm in a fair bit of debt for it as well.

What is it Baz Luhrmann said in 'Sunscreen'?

_Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much
Or berate yourself either.
Your choices are half chance. 
So are everybody else's._


----------



## rona

Thanks for answering me Rona. I had a feeling that you weren't the type of person to accuse people of things without having evidence to back it up.

What I will say though is:

First, men who don't pay child support can hardly be given as an example of benefit cheats - cheats yes, scum often, but not actually _benefit_ cheats.

*So who do you think pays for their children?*
Second, the man who bought his council house and then sold it to live in France.... I have said on other threads that I thought it was wrong to sell off council houses - but this was started under Thatcher, so that part of the example about him is not good in my eyes, but doesn't really fit in with benefit cheating; neither does him 'living it up' in France, as Brits cannot legally claim benefits if living abroad.

*You have forgotten the 20+ years that he cheated the tax payer*, *he can now collect his British pension while living off the proceeds of his ill gotten gains*. *I knew this person all my life until he moved*

As to girls 'popping out kids so they can live on benefits'. We all probably know of women who are living on benefits and have children, but I wonder just how many of them really 'popped out a kid or two' just to get benefits? If so, they must have very low life expectations, as living on benefits with kids is not exactly easy.

*You forget, I said I knew these people. I had contact with one of these girls for over 20 years. Knew her as a child and knew her until her second child was born. Children that were looked after more often than not by her parents while she went shopping, partying and getting tattoos.*

*The other also dumped hers on her mother while she visited the beauty parlours for facials, manicures and hair dos *

And in this sense, I would say that _the few_ that carry on claiming when a boyfriend moves in are only doing this because either: they think that the relationship will not last and are afraid of losing their benefits and being unable to claim them again; or have so little money that (rightly or wrongly) they want a few months of not having to scrimp on every penny.
Neither of those examples is 'right', but understandable, especially when, at the other end of the scale, there are people who have so much money that these women's benefits are but a miniscule speck when compared to their accumulated wealth.

*You carry on making excuses for them...................*
As to single people who get nothing - I agree. It's wrong. But this has been the way of all governments and their legislation and could certainly be considered as something which needs to be addressed. Would you like to have a bet with me as to whether or not the Tories are likely to consider this?

*I had worked all my life, paid my taxes, never broke the law and when I was homeless, how much help did I get...............................................*

'Enabling people who aren't really ill to convince themselves they are'.... I think you need to be more specific on this. Are you saying that some people are encouraged to believe they are ill, when they are not? And that this has been government policy?
If so, I don't think that any government has intended for this to be so.
But perhaps you have examples of this?

*No I don't mean that at all, we are just so good as a society, that every little twinge is something to worry about and if you are a little down you have depression.
I've not seen many people seriously ill so cannot give any first hand examples except a few indiduals I know that carry on despite great pain.
I have known people seriously depressed and with mental health issues, and I know also from experience that many that "suffer" don't really know what it is to suffer, it's in their imagination*

Finally, just to pick up on your statement: "I'm pissed off about paying for peoples kids".
I think many people are pissed off about this, but for different reasons.
Many appear to have the view that certain members of the population should not produce kids at all. Are you one of those people? And if so, which members of the population would you consider 'adequate' to produce kids?
Others link this to the population crisis. That's a whole other issue, but it does tend to influence their views on this whole subject.
But yes....that's a whole other issue.....

Anyway.
Sorry it took so long to reply to your answer, but I've been working in between writing.
And thanks for taking the time to reply to mine.[/QUOTE]

*I don't care who has kids, as long as I don't have to pay for them*


----------



## sarybeagle

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know one person with cancer who has been denied treatment or tests in a reasonable time frame although I do accept some of the expensive life prolonging drugs are a postcode lottery. This is one of the things I think they need to review - what should and should not be available on the NHS.


I sadly know of three people. All have died.
My friend aged 26 with a 5 yr old boy, from cervical cancer having been told she was too young for the smear despite all the warning signs and too young to possibly have cancer. She died 10 months after her first smear.

An old school friend aged 30 with 3 children, youngest is 2. Told her breast pain was mastitis and told to get on with it. Went elsewhere, found to be riddled with cancer. Died 3 weeks before Xmas last year.

My sister in law. Aged 30. Again fought too young to be cancer. Fought hard for testing and waiting. Died after a 3 year fight. Postcode lotteries and delays caused untold stress.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

sarybeagle said:


> I sadly know of three people. All have died.
> My friend aged 26 with a 5 yr old boy, from cervical cancer having been told she was too young for the smear despite all the warning signs and too young to possibly have cancer. She died 10 months after her first smear.
> 
> An old school friend aged 30 with 3 children, youngest is 2. Told her breast pain was mastitis and told to get on with it. Went elsewhere, found to be riddled with cancer. Died 3 weeks before Xmas last year.
> 
> My sister in law. Aged 30. Again fought too young to be cancer. Fought hard for testing and waiting. Died after a 3 year fight. Postcode lotteries and delays caused untold stress.


These are tragic stories. 

Were the delays in treatment due to funding issues, or diagnostic errors?


----------



## sarybeagle

Shoshannah said:


> These are tragic stories.
> 
> Were the delays in treatment due to funding issues, or diagnostic errors?


I'd imagine diagnostic rather than funding. I darent think of it being cost related. 
Lisa, with the breast cancer was turned away by her gp for 6 months, she made the local news and was in the process of suing them due to neglect on their behalf. She died v suddenly after it had spread to her brain.

Ally, repeatedly told she was too young for a smear. Despite being a mum, despite constant bleeding bloating and pain. She had her smear two weeks before her wedding. Told she cancer a week after. It spread to her brain v quick.

Sis in law I think was more waiting list times. More than the recommended. However her treatment was v intensive.
After 7 operations, 6 rounds of Dicarbozine chemotherapy, 5 rounds of brain radiotherapy, 5 rounds of dicarbozine/cysplatin chemotherapy and 3 rounds of Yervoy...there was nothing left they could do.


----------



## Dogloverlou

And lets not forget the cuts to mental health services too. Having been seeing therapists on/off throughout most of my teenage years, and again recently, there is a massive difference in the services available. I was told I could have no further therapy after my 2 month stint of CBT last October because the cuts meant loss of resources and quite simply a very limited time frame. With waiting lists into the hundreds...even thousands, they simply can't manage people cost effectively on a long term 1:1 basis. And I think it's disgraceful to be honest. Good job I wasn't in a worse way and had no where to turn! As it happens all I've been advised to do since is take meds....which without continued therapy/support I find pointless.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

sarybeagle said:


> I sadly know of three people. All have died.
> My friend aged 26 with a 5 yr old boy, from cervical cancer having been told she was too young for the smear despite all the warning signs and too young to possibly have cancer. She died 10 months after her first smear.
> 
> An old school friend aged 30 with 3 children, youngest is 2. Told her breast pain was mastitis and told to get on with it. Went elsewhere, found to be riddled with cancer. Died 3 weeks before Xmas last year.
> 
> My sister in law. Aged 30. Again fought too young to be cancer. Fought hard for testing and waiting. Died after a 3 year fight. Postcode lotteries and delays caused untold stress.


I'm so sorry about your friends and your SIL, that is so sad. However I would say those sound like cases of poor clinical judgement which sadly happen under any government. I do think they should lower the age for smear tests but again that seems to be a clinical decision to avoid unnecessary treatment to young women which may affect their future fertility.


----------



## ForestWomble

emmaviolet said:


> The tories are scrapping the human rights act, so the disabled (yes even those who are genuine and should be entitled to things) will not be protected.
> There will be no protection of the poor, the weak or even those in jobs with a minimum wage.


If this is right ..................... I can't even begin to explain how scared I feel.


----------



## MollySmith

One for those who couldn't be bothered to vote.

"If everyone who did not vote in this week's General Election had voted for a specific party, it would have held a majority in the House of Commons.

Voter turnout was the highest in this week's election since the Labour landslide in 1997, with 66.1 per cent of the electorate going to the polls, but this would not have stopped the so-called 'Apathy Party' achieving power."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ral-election-if-it-were-a-party-10238290.html


----------



## silvi

@rona:
your responses are in bold.

*So who do you think pays for their children?*
I don't know. You failed to tell me in your post and I don't like to make assumptions.
*
You have forgotten the 20+ years that he cheated the tax payer*, *he can now collect his British pension while living off the proceeds of his ill gotten gains*. *I knew this person all my life until he moved*

You told me he 'had a bad back'. that's all 

And he is entitled to collect his pension wherever he lives (although, incidentally, it is only in EU countries where he will get updates to his pension - but I guess that rubs salt into the wound if you want out of the EU...).

But I would wonder just how much 'ill gotten gains' he amassed, even over twenty years, because incapacity benefit never paid that much. certainly not enough to now allow him to live in luxury in France.

*You forget, I said I knew these people. I had contact with one of these girls for over 20 years. Knew her as a child and knew her until her second child was born. Children that were looked after more often than not by her parents while she went shopping, partying and getting tattoos.*

*The other also dumped hers on her mother while she visited the beauty parlours for facials, manicures and hair dos *

I'm sorry, but what does getting a tattoo or visiting a beauty parlour have to do with anything?

*You carry on making excuses for them...................*
I'm not making excuses for anyone, just seeing things from another perspective.

*I had worked all my life, paid my taxes, never broke the law and when I was homeless, how much help did I get...............................................*

I've already said that I think that is wrong.
But I also said that I doubt that this future government will do anything to change that.

*No I don't mean that at all, we are just so good as a society, that every little twinge is something to worry about and if you are a little down you have depression.
I've not seen many people seriously ill so cannot give any first hand examples except a few indiduals I know that carry on despite great pain.
I have known people seriously depressed and with mental health issues, and I know also from experience that many that "suffer" don't really know what it is to suffer, it's in their imagination*

Yes, a small number of people do believe that they are ill when they are not. But that is an illness in itself and one that can cause a great deal of suffering.

In any case, very few of us on this forum are health experts, although quite a few people do suffer from health problems.

But I just don't think it is right (and certainly not helpful) to tell anyone that something is 'all in their head' because you can't see it.

*I don't care who has kids, as long as I don't have to pay for them*
Fair enough


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> And in labour run wales...


Wales may be 'run' by Labour, but where does the funding come from, and the spending caps?


----------



## emmaviolet

Animallover26 said:


> If this is right ..................... I can't even begin to explain how scared I feel.


I'm sorry to say it's very true, within the next hundred days they plan to put this through and a lot of other extreme policies while the other parties are in turmoil without leaders to put up any objections.
It is a very scary though for all of us.


----------



## emmaviolet

Ang2 said:


> I know you are a good person, and honestly, we have most of the same values. I care about animals, the old, the poor and the sick. The only difference is that I truly believe that if this welfare state continues as it is, it will collapse, and there will be nothing for anyone as the country will be bankrupt. A welfare state should be supported by the majority, not the minority.
> 
> Don't leave this discussion. Just because people differ, doesn't mean they cant join in..


Thank you Ang, I believe you to be a good person, I am just choosing not to carry on here as I don't really wish to, not because I do not think people shouldn't have differing opinions.

I agree with you, but I know that the welfare state is not as it has been portrayed in the media so recently (because of their own agenda to keep the right in power).
The welfare costs the country a lot, the biggest chunk of it goes to pensioners and working people tax credits.
The amount of people abusing it is minimal, but media portrays it to be the majority, most people who take JSA need it and cannot find the work, it's about £50 a week, take away travel, food and bills and there's hardly room to live the life of luxury.
The majority on things like ESA and DLA need it to try to live with their illnesses and disabilities and it has been taken away from so many who are so ill, some because they could set an alarm clock, others because they could literally answer some questions from the assessor. 
The small minority may lie or play it, the majority need it to survive. Yet with £12 billion in welfare cuts coming, I really, very much doubt that £12 million is coming rom that minority, do you?

I just cannot support a government that does these things to the poorest in society.
Already in a day and it's all things being put out that will affect the poor. Nothing about bankers or the tax avoiders and how things need to change there.

My grandmother gets DLA and my Mother is so anxious for her since the results. I couldn't possibly ever support the tories as someone in my family receives this benefit and being ill myself I could possibly need support in the future if things turn around and I have many ill friends who do or have lost it.
When I voted I thought of not myself but the society and my loved ones, I could never vote someone in who could cause my loved ones so much distress.


----------



## Pointermum

sarybeagle said:


> I'd imagine diagnostic rather than funding. I darent think of it being cost related.
> Lisa, with the breast cancer was turned away by her gp for 6 months, she made the local news and was in the process of suing them due to neglect on their behalf. She died v suddenly after it had spread to her brain.
> 
> Ally, repeatedly told she was too young for a smear. Despite being a mum, despite constant bleeding bloating and pain. She had her smear two weeks before her wedding. Told she cancer a week after. It spread to her brain v quick.
> 
> Sis in law I think was more waiting list times. More than the recommended. However her treatment was v intensive.
> After 7 operations, 6 rounds of Dicarbozine chemotherapy, 5 rounds of brain radiotherapy, 5 rounds of dicarbozine/cysplatin chemotherapy and 3 rounds of Yervoy...there was nothing left they could do.


Are all these as direct result of a Tory government in the last 5 years ? Because I know my auntie died from Breast cancer in her 30's like your friend Lisa she was told it was mastitis while breast feeding, that would be under the Blair government.


----------



## cheekyscrip

I think we should blame the Tories for the highest rate of obesity in Europe, on one of the highest rates of teen pregnancies and binge drinking related crimes.
Oh..and forgot the weather.


----------



## emmaviolet

Just a couple of things.

To prove how the media support one agenda over the other, the streets of London are filled with protesters at the minute, search twitter #toriesoutnow
There has been no coverage on sky news or bbc news about it.

Also there is news that yesterday the biggest privatisation deal has been done for the NHS for £780 million.
Shared between 11 companies, three of which have ill repute and one an outstanding legal action over eye problems as a result of their operations.
Happened pretty fast, in on Thursday, deal on Friday, five years down the line, who knows


----------



## JANICE199

emmaviolet said:


> Just a couple of things.
> 
> To prove how the media support one agenda over the other, the streets of London are filled with protesters at the minute, search twitter #toriesoutnow
> There has been no coverage on sky news or bbc news about it.
> 
> Also there is news that yesterday the biggest privatisation deal has been done for the NHS for £780 million.
> Shared between 11 companies, three of which have ill repute and one an outstanding legal action over eye problems as a result of their operations.
> Happened pretty fast, in on Thursday, deal on Friday, five years down the line, who knows


*I'm watching it on live stream now. here http://bambuser.com/v/5500172*


----------



## JANICE199

I hope this link works.


----------



## shetlandlover

Honestly words fail me.


----------



## Ang2

.But, aren't these contracts to set up mobile clinics to diagnose and treat the backlog of patients?


----------



## shetlandlover

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...id-Cameron-s-triumphant-return-Number-10.html

They look like real contributors to society don't they..


----------



## negative creep

Has anyone told them that if we had PR we'd have a Tory-UKIP alliance?


----------



## Ang2

Shoshannah said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Conservative voters did not vote (intentionally or not) to bring back foxhunting. They voted for a free vote to bring back foxhunting. A free vote that has not occurred yet and could quite easily result in a decision not to repeal the ban anyway. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Besides, with all the talk of foxhunting I* have failed to see any mention of the Tories' policies on religious slaughter, which affects a much greater proportion of the animal kingdom than hunting with dogs and on a more industrial scale. Does anyone wish to comment on this?* I speak as a vehement opposer of both foxhunting and non-stun slaughter, who did not vote Conservative this year but who is not, personally, unhappy with the election result
> 
> This subject has been brought up many times..... and out trot the minority apologists, who bring into the argument official studies and statements from vets in support of non stun! Its a bloody joke that this country makes such concessions for such barbarity in the name of religion. Another reason I voted UKIP!
> 
> this
> ^ This.


----------



## shadowmare

Surely demanding for a new voting system 2 days after elections is a bit late? I'm not going to pretend to understand the UK voting system, but I do hate when things like that kick off. Lets just be happy that we're not living in Russia where even the dead vote for presidents. I'm just counting the days until someone will start questioning whether someone faked the numbers or something...


----------



## Goblin

So would there be violent clashes and placards about PR if labor had got in on the same numbers? 

Not doing anyone any favors, simply looks like poor losers at the moment.


----------



## cheekyscrip

negative creep said:


> Has anyone told them that if we had PR we'd have a Tory-UKIP alliance?


Never bothered them when their choice won? That is true respect for democracy...do not worry..you will get PR in vote on Europe..
Personally would be ashamed to participate...people voted..respect!


----------



## negative creep

cheekyscrip said:


> Never bothered them when their choice won? That is true respect for democracy...do not worry..you will get PR in vote on Europe...


Irony is that idiots such as these likely do a good job of putting ordinary people off voting Labour. Basically it's a case of we want democracy, but only our particular view of it. They also daubed "F*ck Tory Scum" on a war memorial - remind me who the real fascists are?


----------



## Goblin

negative creep said:


> Irony is that idiots such as these likely do a good job of putting ordinary people off voting Labour. Basically it's a case of we want democracy, but only our particular view of it. They also daubed "F*ck Tory Scum" on a war memorial - remind me who the real fascists are?


No it's all biased propaganda and it was the tories who actually daubed the memorial as a set up.


----------



## Rafa

Ridiculous. Absolute fools, in my opinion.

The nation voted. It may not have been the result they wanted but that is what freedom of choice is about.

And defacing a War Memorial? Well, that says it all to me.


----------



## Ang2

Shoshannah said:


> Conservative voters did not vote (intentionally or not) to bring back foxhunting. They voted for a free vote to bring back foxhunting. A free vote that has not occurred yet and could quite easily result in a decision not to repeal the ban anyway. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Besides, with all the talk of foxhunting *I have failed to see any mention of the Tories' policies on religious slaughter, which affects a much greater proportion of the animal kingdom than hunting with dogs and on a more industrial scale. Does anyone wish to comment on this?* I speak as a vehement opposer of both foxhunting and non-stun slaughter, who did not vote Conservative this year but who is not, personally, unhappy with the election result.
> 
> ^ This.


This subject has been brought up before, and out trot the apologists for minority groups. Some quoting statements and studies by vets, in support of non stun!

Another reason I voted UKIP!


----------



## Colliebarmy

Too late to moan now, put it back the box


----------



## Jobeth

Sweety said:


> Ridiculous. Absolute fools, in my opinion.
> 
> The nation voted. It may not have been the result they wanted but that is what freedom of choice is about.
> 
> And defacing a War Memorial? Well, that says it all to me.


They injured a police officer and a member of police staff. They also assaulted three police officers, but they didn't require hospital treatment. It is on Sky news. I did watch the live stream for a bit and was not impressed.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

I seem to remember we had a vote in 2011 on changing the first past the post voting system for the AV (alternative voting) system and it was rejected by a substantial majority of the electorate. Although Labour had previously agreed to hold a referendum on PR they never did.


----------



## Rafa

They'll probably begin looting and stealing next.

Any excuse.


----------



## Ang2

UKIP got more votes than SNP and Lib Dems together! Yet, one seat! The present voting system does not work for multi parties. Its grossly unfair.


----------



## negative creep

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I seem to remember we had a vote in 2011 on changing the first past the post voting system for the AV (alternative voting) system and it was rejected by a substantial majority of the electorate. Although Labour had previously agreed to hold a referendum on PR they never did.


Last government to be elected by more than 50% of the vote was 1931 (and they were Tory incidentally)


----------



## shetlandlover

The majority of these people will be "protesting" for all the wrong reasons... 

How long until Riots again? Urgh, they need to act like adults and either protest in peace or **** off.


----------



## negative creep

I see Charlotte Church was right at the thick of the protests. After all she knows what it's like to live on the breadline and only being able to spend £800,000 on a yacht

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-triumph-says-ve-given-reins-bogey-men.html

And it's not as if she ever went to Tony Blair asking for a tax rebate is it?

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/Charlotte+Church-4618.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/charlotte-church-hmrc-keeps-investigating-me-my-missing-millions-1456052

Oh


----------



## sarybeagle

Pointermum said:


> Are all these as direct result of a Tory government in the last 5 years ? Because I know my auntie died from Breast cancer in her 30's like your friend Lisa she was told it was mastitis while breast feeding, that would be under the Blair government.


Ally died 4 years ago, Lisa 5 months ago and Gemma 2 years just gone. All Tory at the time.


----------



## Pointermum

sarybeagle said:


> Ally died 4 years ago, Lisa 5 months ago and Gemma 2 years just gone. All Tory at the time.


But the sad fact is they most likely would of had the same outcome no matter who was in power  Human error would always be there like with my auntie and your friend. I'm sorry for you losses it's sounds like you've had a dreadful few years 

One of my friends was detected last year with breast cancer she was in for the op and chemo and all dealt with very efficiently and thankfully got the all clear now.

There will ways be good and bad NHS experiences.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> No it's all biased propaganda and it was the tories who actually daubed the memorial as a set up.


Yes, and next we'll have the Reichstag fire.....

Oops! wrong country.....


----------



## Colliebarmy

sarybeagle said:


> Ally died 4 years ago, Lisa 5 months ago and Gemma 2 years just gone. All Tory at the time.


But were the illness and hospitals able to be blamed on the Coalition when it had only been in power 1 year against Labour previous 10 years?

If die today due to a NHS failing is it the Tories fault, the Coalitions fault or Labours if my condition was to be over 6 years old

or just bad luck dare I say?


----------



## Lurcherlad

shetlandlover said:


> The majority of these people will be "protesting" for all the wrong reasons...
> 
> How long until Riots again? Urgh, they need to act like adults and either protest in peace or **** off.


Typical reactions of the "great unwashed" in my view


----------



## Ang2

And for all Russell Brand fans, here he is cashing in!

*Poor old Russell Brand still wants to launch his 'revolution'... but in quaintly capitalist style, he wants to trademark the spelling as his own - to sell 'trinkets' to the masses*

*Russell Brand is trademarking his own spelling of the word 'revolution' *
*His company has reserved right to use the logo with letters spelling 'love'*
*Trademark can be used on trinkets, stationery, wallets and even lingerie *
*He has been selling T-shirts with similar logo on his website for at least £30*
By Simon Murphy for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 22:36, 9 May 2015 | Updated: 03:13, 10 May 2015

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3075121/Poor-old-Russell-wants-launch-revolution-quaintly-capitalist-fashion-wants-brand-spelling-sell-trinkets-masses.html#ixzz3ZidnZJhd 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Lurcherlad

Is that ironic?


----------



## Colliebarmy

Lurcherlad said:


> Is that ironic?


Did you expect the line "All profits to the Labour party" at the bottom?

Has it all been to raise the trademark's profile?

Could he be that shallow (yes)


----------



## cheekyscrip

Labour paid Axelrod (theObama campaign guru) 300 k...and came up with tombstone (30k more)...talking about ironic.


----------



## Spellweaver

Just catching up - will read the rst but just wanted to respond to these two first:



cloversmum said:


> didn't take them long
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html


And so it begins ........



Goblin said:


> As far as the animal cruelty goes, many of those who go on about that also condone the long term cruelty of some pedigree dog breeding. Never simply black and white.


Ok - where is your proof for that? Please quote any post from any thread where any pedigree owners/breeder on this forum have said that they condone breeding for exaggerations. (Cue Goblin posting to say that he's putting me back on ignore because he can't find any post to substantiate his claims)


----------



## noushka05

shetlandlover said:


> The majority of these people will be "protesting" for all the wrong reasons...
> 
> How long until Riots again? Urgh, they need to act like adults and either protest in peace or **** off.





Lurcherlad said:


> Typical reactions of the "great unwashed" in my view


I watched the livestreams of the protest from the start, watched it all unfold, it 'was' a peaceful protest. It only became a 'riot' when the police started ketteling the demonstrators & getting heavy handed. The slant the media has taken is disgusting - though totally expected 

'The great unwashed'? Is that what they call people who stand up for what they believe in these days? My eldest is one exam & 2 case studies away from becoming a fully qualified chartered accountant & he was contemplating driving down to join the demo. I can assure you he is extremely well groomed lol


----------



## noushka05

Ang2 said:


> 64% of the population claim benefits of a kind. Do the maths!


That is the fault of bosses not paying them enough to live on! Most people on benefits are in work, most people living in poverty are in work. Welcome to tory Britain.


----------



## negative creep

So presumably the Police forced one of them to daub "F*ck Tory Scum" on a war memorial? Also be interested to know where these people were in 2005 when Labour won with 35.2% of the vote?


----------



## JANICE199

negative creep said:


> So presumably the Police forced one of them to daub "F*ck Tory Scum" on a war memorial? Also be interested to know where these people were in 2005 when Labour won with 35.2% of the vote?


*I don't know why so much is being made of this. 5 mins and it will clean off. The people are going to suffer for a lot longer than that. Talk about getting things into perspective.*


----------



## Spellweaver

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So tell me when deciding who to vote for did you agree 100% with every single policy of the party you voted for? If like many people there was no one party you agreed 100% with then surely there has to be a process of elimination to see which party best represents you even if it has some policies you don't agree with. How about when Mr Blair took us to war in Iraq under false pretences - did every labour voter stop voting labour after that because of that one thing or did they decide to forgive that thing because on the whole labour still represented their beliefs regarding the welfare state and NHS etc?
> 
> I also don't believe you are vegetarian so whilst I'm not either I'd like to know why you think its OK to say some of us have blood on our hands when clearly you do too.


I have said many times on here how I decide who to vote for, and that no-one can agree with 100% of a party's policies. The only thing someone can do is decide which issues they could never compromise on, and omit the parties that are advocating them. These issues are different for everyone, but for me one of the issues I would never compromise on is animals welfare - hence I could never vote either Tory or UKIP becasue they were both quite open about bringing back fox-hunting. Then I looked at the parties that were left and made my choice accordingly. I don't agree with 100% of Labour's policies - for example, I don't agree with their stance on the SNP - but if they had won the election then I would not be afraid/ashamed/guilty to hold my hand up and admit well, I voted for them so I have to live with the fact that I also voted for their stance on Scotland.

And that's what gets me about the people who voted consevative and are now trying to pretend they didn't vote for fox-hunting. It's not that they voted Tory - that's their choice; no problem with that. It's that they think they somehow voted Tory for everything but fox-hunting. But they didn't. No matter how much they don't agree with fox-hunting, they have to hold up their hands and say, "Yes, I don't agree with it, but I did vote for it because other issues were more important to me.". I can respect that. I can't respect the "I voted Tory but I didn't vote for fox-hunting" nonsense.

As for not being a vegetarian, I have never preetended that I was. I have also posted many times on here that hunting for food is vastly different from hunting for pleasure. I don't agee with and actively campaign against factory farming. I buy my meat from a local fam shop where I can be asured that animals aren't factory farmed - something I have also said many times on here.

I'm not ashamed of what I do or my choices - but if it comforts you to call that "blood on my hands" and it salves your conscience for voting for a party dedicated to bringing back fox-hunting, then fine.


----------



## Milliepoochie

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't know why so much is being made of this. 5 mins and it will clean off. The people are going to suffer for a lot longer than that. Talk about getting things into perspective.*


Says a lot when it's not a big deal defacing a war memorial....


----------



## JANICE199

Milliepoochie said:


> Says a lot when it's not a big deal defacing a war memorial....


*I don't fall for that hype. People are more important than a piece of stone.*


----------



## shetlandlover

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't know why so much is being made of this. 5 mins and it will clean off. The people are going to suffer for a lot longer than that. Talk about getting things into perspective.*


Really?

So if they came and defaced your family members grave stone it wouldn't be a big deal right?

The defacing of the memorial shows how some of these people actually are, no respect for anyone or anything....


----------



## JANICE199

shetlandlover said:


> Really?
> 
> So if they came and defaced your family members grave stone it wouldn't be a big deal right?
> 
> The defacing of the memorial shows how some of these people actually are, no respect for anyone or anything....


*Did i say it was ok? I said get things into perspective. Is it ok for Cameron to do what he is doing/ about to do? I think that is the issue.*


----------



## noushka05

negative creep said:


> So presumably the Police forced one of them to daub "F*ck Tory Scum" on a war memorial? Also be interested to know where these people were in 2005 when Labour won with 35.2% of the vote?





Milliepoochie said:


> Says a lot when it's not a big deal defacing a war memorial....


I don't think many protestors would condone defacing a war memorial either. But Janice is right. What a truly sick country this is when disabled war veterans get their benefits stopped & no one bats an eye. A war memorial gets tagged, & everyone is up in arms.


----------



## Spellweaver

Ang2 said:


> 64% of the population claim benefits of a kind. Do the maths!


That figure (if it's true, and you've not posted any proof that it is) will include child benefit paid to every family with an income of up to 99.9K providing one partner isn't earning above 50K. Do you have children? If so, you yourself will be in that 64%. Just because child benefit is seen as a socially accceptable benefit doesn't make it any less of a benefit. You are still relying on other people's taxes in order to raise your children.

And before the backlash starts, I have no problem at all with child benefit other than it needs to be properly means tested so that it goes to the people who actually need it rather than to a family whose icome could be 99.9K.. As a way to help hard-working parents on low wages I think it is excellent.

I do have a problem with one benefit recipient whining about others though!


----------



## shetlandlover

JANICE199 said:


> *Did i say it was ok? I said get things into perspective. Is it ok for Cameron to do what he is doing/ about to do? I think that is the issue.*


What Cameron is doing is building this country up so that future generations can enjoy a country that's truly deserving of the name "Great Britain"


----------



## JANICE199

shetlandlover said:


> What Cameron is doing is building this country up so that future generations can enjoy a country that's truly deserving of the name "Great Britain"


*lol Well you carry on believing that. I sure as hell don't.*


----------



## Colliebarmy

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't fall for that hype. People are more important than a piece of stone.*


Nice

(Here lies lots of people)

When was VE day?....


----------



## Colliebarmy

shetlandlover said:


> What Cameron is doing is building this country up so that future generations can enjoy a country that's truly deserving of the name "Great Britain"


Hear hear, but some cant take losing....


----------



## JANICE199

Colliebarmy said:


> Nice
> 
> (Here lies lots of people)
> 
> When was VE day?....


*And your point is what? They are graves not a memorial.*


----------



## Colliebarmy

noushka05 said:


> That is the fault of bosses not paying them enough to live on! Most people on benefits are in work, most people living in poverty are in work. Welcome to tory Britain.


OMG.....the UK was bust, broken and skint 5 years ago after 13 years of Labour mis-rule


----------



## Colliebarmy

JANICE199 said:


> *And your point is what? They are graves not a memorial.*


Explain how a headstone isnt a memorial please

Thats exactly what it is


----------



## StormyThai

negative creep said:


> So presumably the Police forced one of them to daub "F*ck Tory Scum" on a war memorial? Also be interested to know where these people were in 2005 when Labour won with 35.2% of the vote?


Oh I don't know..maybe there wasn't the unrest across the country then, maybe, just maybe the people didn't feel the need to protest then, maybe, just maybe....Or are you saying that the masses have to protest everything if they want to protest at all?
People are allowed to be angered over one thing and not another ya know...I know it is shocking 

I don't agree with defacing anything during protests, but I think people need to get this into perspective...it is a bit of paint on a statue, nothing more, nothing less!

I do love the medias perception of protesters, much easier to think of these people as "below" the rest, that way you don't have to think about what is going on, you can just judge from afar with your perfect happy lives


----------



## JANICE199

Colliebarmy said:


> Explain how a headstone isnt a memorial please
> 
> Thats exactly what it is


*What are you talking about? Please reread what i have said.*


----------



## emmaviolet

shetlandlover said:


> What Cameron is doing is building this country up so that future generations can enjoy a country that's truly deserving of the name "Great Britain"


I just chocked on my coffee!
You seem to have changed your tune from earlier in the thread from a tactical vote to a true Torie blue.


----------



## Spellweaver

Satori said:


> "Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver."


But a driver with money can go a lot further than a driver without money.



StormyThai said:


> I do love the medias perception of protesters, much easier to think of these people as "below" the rest, that way you don't have to think about what is going on, you can just judge from afar with your perfect happy lives


There's a lot of it going on ...  ... that's why people see everyone on benefits as scroungers, everyone with a disabled sticker as just tyring to get a better parking place, everyone with a disability that's not immediately visible as able-bodied, everyone who voted Labour as wanting not to work and live off the rich, everyone who dies because of lack of funding to the NHS have died because of bad clinical decidions ... as you say, much easier to the conscience to lable things that way and then you don't have to worry about them or accept responsibility for them.


----------



## shetlandlover

emmaviolet said:


> I just chocked on my coffee!
> You seem to have changed your tune from earlier in the thread from a tactical vote to a true Torie blue.


No. I wanted to vote Green actually....so it was a tactical vote...however I'm not so angry as to turn away from the very true fact that the tories are trying to help the country.

My husbands grandfather was a POW and was in the same camp as the guy who wrote "railway man". Anyway he sat there the other day and said he was ashamed of what the country had become.....I think seeing the defacing of a war memorial will just sum it up for him.


----------



## emmaviolet

One person defaced a statue. Yes it is horrible, but it was one person and it will be fine. One out of thousands, do not tarr all of the protesters with the same brush. I'm glad there are still people who will stand up for things,we will need it soon.

The people who lose their lives because of the cuts will not have another go at life.
There are plans to get cancer patients who are even termi al into work schemes now. Cancer patients,


----------



## rona

emmaviolet said:


> One person defaced a statue. Yes it is horrible, but it was one person and it will be fine. One out of thousands, do not tarr all of the protesters with the same brush. I'm glad there are still people who will stand up for things,we will need it soon.
> 
> The people who lose their lives because of the cuts will not have another go at life.
> There are plans to get cancer patients who are even termi al into work schemes now. Cancer patients,


I thought it was only 100s and far less than the sum total of rent a mob


----------



## noushka05

Colliebarmy said:


> Explain how a headstone isnt a memorial please
> 
> Thats exactly what it is


If you genuinely cared about people who fought in wars, you would support the demo's!.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...iates-disabled-army-war-veterans-8633610.html

Degrading back-to-work welfare assessments that are stripping former soldiers of their benefits have been denounced by leading veterans' charities.

Thousands of ex-servicemen are being pushed to the breadline after being judged fit for work by the government-appointed company Atos. Severely wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, who were once entitled to incapacity benefits, are being told they no longer qualify under new assessments carried out by Atos on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Danny Greeno, chief executive of the Veterans Charity, said: "It is becoming an unbearable situation. It should not be happening to people who have served their country. The people doing these assessments need to be properly qualified."

Lance-Corporal Mark Dryden, 35, who lost his right arm when a roadside bomb went off in Iraq, was awarded incapacity benefit in 2008 but had it withdrawn this year under the new system. He described the assessment, in which he was asked by Atos whether he was right-handed, as "totally and utterly degrading."

Mr Greeno added: "Many of these people are already on the breadline. The majority are suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. All they want to do is work but they cannot. The challenges they are facing are completely different to other people who are out of work and they need a lot more support.


----------



## Satori

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't fall for that hype. People are more important than a piece of stone.*


----------



## negative creep

emmaviolet said:


> There are plans to get cancer patients who are even termi al into work schemes now. Cancer patients,


Be interested to see your source for that?


----------



## Satori

Watching the news this morning, it seems Labour plan to swing to the right. In a knee-jerk reaction to the election results Maggies proudest achievement is being wheeled out again and the favourite candidates for Labour leadership are saying that the party needs to do more to catch the Tory vote and appeal to the aspirational etc.....

Wtf. I don't really care that much what they do but is that what politics has come down to; the voters don't like my beliefs and values so I'll just keep chopping and changing them until I find a winning formula that allows me to keep my job?


----------



## rona

Satori said:


> Watching the news this morning, it seems Labour plan to swing to the right. In a knee-jerk reaction to the election results Maggies proudest achievement is being wheeled out again and the favourite candidates for Labour leadership are saying that the party needs to do more to catch the Tory vote and appeal to the aspirational etc.....
> 
> Wtf. I don't really care that much what they do but is that what politics has come down to; the voters don't like my beliefs and values so I'll just keep chopping and changing them until I find a winning formula that allows me to keep my job?


They lost their integrity many many years ago


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> I thought it was only 100s and far less than the sum total of rent a mob


'only 100's' lol Did you get that from Sky News or the BBC? .


----------



## MyMillie

The quote about the power of the media is so so true Noushka!!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/rupert-murdoch-election-sun-wot-won-it


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> 'only 100's' lol Did you get that from Sky News or the BBC? .


Doesn't matter. The facts are, without any media misrepresentation, that the tories won a general election.

Labour had it's chance through multiple terms to change the voting system to PR. They didn't as it suited them at the time. All these protest show is people not prepared to accept UK democracy if they lose.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> Ok - where is your proof for that? Please quote any post from any thread where any pedigree owners/breeder on this forum have said that they condone breeding for exaggerations. (Cue Goblin posting to say that he's putting me back on ignore because he can't find any post to substantiate his claims)


You don't argue against it do you? You argue against people even raising the issues involved telling them they don't effectively have a right to comment as they are not involved. You really want me to dig quotes if they are still in the system? Even easier is people simply look at the threads concerning pedigree dogs and breeding. That way they will be able to see the context, rather than quotes which can be shown as saying anything out of context.


----------



## noushka05

shetlandlover said:


> No. I wanted to vote Green actually....so it was a tactical vote...however I'm not so angry as to turn away from the very true fact that the tories are trying to help the country.
> 
> My husbands grandfather was a POW and was in the same camp as the guy who wrote "railway man". Anyway he sat there the other day and said he was ashamed of what the country had become.....I think seeing the defacing of a war memorial will just sum it up for him.


Due to tory Austerity policies homelessness has soared. In 2013, ex service personnel accounted for one in 10 rough sleepers. The people out demonstrating are there because of issues like this. Do you know how your hubbys Grandfather feels about a government that has caused all this misery & suffering ? I know it upsets me more than the actions of a ******** defacing a memorial.

_Up to 9,000 British heroes who served Queen and country are homeless after leaving the military, a Sunday Mirror investigation reveals today.

Shockingly, ex-service personnel account for one in 10 rough sleepers across the UK.

And charities have warned that the problem of homelessness among former soldiers, sailors and airmen is a "ticking time bomb" which will only get worse if urgent action isn't taken.

Yesterday Simon Weston OBE, who suffered serious burns in the Falklands War, accused the Government of "betraying" veterans after learning of the disturbing numbers without a home._


----------



## Jonescat

I agree with Nick. "Fear and grievance have won, and liberalism has lost" 

Neither statements are ones I expected to make. Struggling to love my neighbour right now. I completely accept the democratic result as the will of the majority and won't be rioting, but I can no longer be proud of England.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Haven't got time to read back yet but just wanted to say there are many ways of showing love/care and support of ex service personnel - defacing a war memorial especially on the VE celebration weekend when our old soldiers are out if force, proud of their country and what they fought for certainly isn't one of them. However I totally accept that on any demonstration rent a mob often turn up and resort to these tactics so I don't tar all the protesters with the same brush. I show my support and thanks by supporting the charities that help them and other homeless people. Its not fair to keep telling people if they cared they would do this or do that. Most of us care whoever we vote for and its a personal choice how you demonstrate that you care. If you want to wave placards and go on marches then fine do that, if you want to join a political party and lobby then fine do that and if you want to donate hard cash to help people then fine do that, none are better or worse than the other.


----------



## cheekyscrip

I do not quiet understand the protests..Did they go to the streets when Red Ed ousted his brother and on the wings of trade unions suddenly soared to leadership?
Labour made their own bed and now refuses to lie in it.
The was no way undecided voters will take to Ed and his stone.

I do not know if Tories win will be a good thing..
Not if England and Scotland will split over Europe.

I know that Labour lost Scotland and how can you blame Tories for that?

I know Labour did not protest against the system and won many elections..

Many countries have the same system and in rural areas you need fewer votes to win a seat than in urban ones. Therefore Poland was lumbered by govs run by farmers 
ultra Right RC...but no one after election run riot.

There were protests when there was one party to choose from and you not even supposed to choose from that one list of candidates!

Government was chosen. Everyone except Gibraltar had rights to vote or to be a candidate.


Now all antidemocratic regimes, Putin and so show it as a proof that democracy is utter rubbish and stands for nothing and you just cannot let people rule...they still protest!

Even against government chosen...by the people..


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Spellweaver said:


> I have said many times on here how I decide who to vote for, and that no-one can agree with 100% of a party's policies. The only thing someone can do is decide which issues they could never compromise on, and omit the parties that are advocating them. These issues are different for everyone, but for me one of the issues I would never compromise on is animals welfare - hence I could never vote either Tory or UKIP becasue they were both quite open about bringing back fox-hunting. Then I looked at the parties that were left and made my choice accordingly. I don't agree with 100% of Labour's policies - for example, I don't agree with their stance on the SNP - but if they had won the election then I would not be afraid/ashamed/guilty to hold my hand up and admit well, I voted for them so I have to live with the fact that I also voted for their stance on Scotland.
> 
> And that's what gets me about the people who voted consevative and are now trying to pretend they didn't vote for fox-hunting. It's not that they voted Tory - that's their choice; no problem with that. It's that they think they somehow voted Tory for everything but fox-hunting. But they didn't. No matter how much they don't agree with fox-hunting, they have to hold up their hands and say, "Yes, I don't agree with it, but I did vote for it because other issues were more important to me.". I can respect that. I can't respect the "I voted Tory but I didn't vote for fox-hunting" nonsense.
> 
> As for not being a vegetarian, I have never preetended that I was. I have also posted many times on here that hunting for food is vastly different from hunting for pleasure. I don't agee with and actively campaign against factory farming. I buy my meat from a local fam shop where I can be asured that animals aren't factory farmed - something I have also said many times on here.
> 
> I'm not ashamed of what I do or my choices - but if it comforts you to call that "blood on my hands" and it salves your conscience for voting for a party dedicated to bringing back fox-hunting, then fine.


No I'm saying I voted for the party I agree the most with despite not agreeing with some of their policies (the same as you have) and I'm saying that party have agreed to hold a free vote on whether to lift the ban on fox hunting. I'm also not saying you have blood on your hands as I think you well know. I was saying it was unfair of* you *to accuse other people of having it on their hands over voting for a party who plan to hold a free vote on hunting whilst eating meat yourself. I respect your choice to eat meat whilst campaigning against poor welfare standards in the meat industry just as you should respect my choice to vote tory while campaigning for a no vote when that free vote does take place. I do not need to salve my conscience any more than you need to salve yours.


----------



## Jobeth

Only one person may have defaced the memorial, but a lot more of the protesters must of chosen to stand by and watch in a crowd that size. Both my parents served in the forces and I have no respect for people who do things like that.


----------



## silvi

cheekyscrip said:


> Government was chosen. Everyone except Gibraltar had rights to vote or to be a candidate.


Not entirely true...as I said when I answered one of your posts before.

But in any case, do you really think that this government will give Gibraltarians the political rights in the UK that have eluded them up until now?


----------



## rona

silvi said:


> Not entirely true...as I said when I answered one of your posts before.
> 
> But in any case, do you really think that this government will give Gibraltarians the political rights in the UK that have eluded them up until now?


Why do you keep trying to change the point that people are making?
I've given up conversing with you because of it


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Why do you keep trying to change the point that people are making?
> I've given up conversing with you because of it


Fair enough


----------



## noushka05

Jobeth said:


> Only one person may have defaced the memorial, but a lot more of the protesters must of chosen to stand by and watch in a crowd that size. Both my parents served in the forces and I have no respect for people who do things like that.


How do you know a lot more protesters must have chosen to stand by? How do we know it was even a protester? How do we know it wasn't a police Agent Provocateur? Its not the first time the Met have been accused of this!


----------



## Muze

Not ok for the war memorial to be defaced of course, but it's being used to distract attention from the real issue IMO.

Remember those people died for democracy, for a safe and free country.... I think there's a good chance they'd be marching alongside the protesters! 

Judging by the attitude on social media, these minor scuffles are just the beginning, people are NOT happy and are not prepared to just lie down and lump it, it seems x


----------



## silvi

The more I think about it, what really saddens me about the whole election debate and the outcome is that we appear to have become a nation where people don't care about others who are worse off than them.

We appear to be a country where people are more inclined to question a person applying for benefits and label them a 'scrounger' than to ask why they have been forced into this position.

And we now appear to be a country more inclined to blame those living among us than to look further for the real cause of the country's ills.

And when people protest about the outcome of the election, I feel sad that so many are inclined to label them 'troublemakers' and deride them rather than to ask themselves why feelings are so high and why so many now feel complete despair.


----------



## rona

Muze said:


> Not ok for the war memorial to be defaced of course, but it's being used to distract attention from the real issue IMO.
> 
> Remember those people died for democracy, for a safe and free country.... I think there's a good chance they'd be marching alongside the protesters!
> 
> Judging by the attitude on social media, these minor scuffles are just the beginning, people are NOT happy and are not prepared to just lie down and lump it, it seems x


But they are acting against democracy of this country, just what those poor souls died for.
Why should a few try and force their views on others?


----------



## Goblin

Channel 4 have stated 


> Police said that the majority had been protesting peacefully, but a small minority was intent on causing disorder.


Can't think of many demonstrations where this isn't the case. Often the minority do not care about the reason for the demonstration.

However the poster's seen are not about austerity, they are not about the core issues. They are about the fact they do not agree with the simple fact that the tories have been elected by a democratic process. Anyone else notice the more "professional" banners are all "Tories out"?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

@JANICE199 I would like to ask a genuine question that may be interpreted as a dig, but I don't intend to be (it is difficult to get across in mere words on a forum). 

It is clear from your posts that you are unhappy with the election result and vehemently opposed to the Tories.

I was wondering:
a) whether a Labour/UKIP/Green/Lib Dem (choise your poison) victory would have incited similar comments.
b) whether there is any electable party that would NOT have incited similar comments.
c) if 'yes' to b, then why did you choose not to vote for them?

I'm totally on board with the freedom to choose not to vote, and we've had that discussion many a time on PF, but I am finding it genuinely difficult to understand why you can be so angry with the result of an election you did not vote in when there is (presumably) a result out there that would have made you happier, but a result you chose not to vote for?

Should none of us have voted at all, so that we cannot be criticised for making the 'wrong' vote by those who did not vote at all?

I'm reading that back now and it still seems like a dig, but I can't phrase it any other way, sorry - I'm just interested to hear your slant on it.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> The more I think about it, what really saddens me about the whole election debate and the outcome is that we appear to have become a nation where people don't care about others who are worse off than them.


You only have to look at the "rat race" society to appreciate this. The need for the latest smartphone, car etc to be one up on people you know. I think you need to change this culture to reset the baseline. I wonder how many of the protestors have the latest smartphones?


----------



## Colliebarmy

Some folk would moan about anything

Labour are no angels and havent served the working man that well


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> You only have to look at the "rat race" society to appreciate this. The need for the latest smartphone, car etc to be one up on people you know. I think you need to change this culture to reset the baseline. I wonder how many of the protestors have the latest smartphones?


Yes, I agree with that.
For all of my life, it has seemed as if we must have 'aspirations', but not to be good people, or do our best for others, but in order to accumulate more 'things'.
And now it has come to the point where, yes, those protesters would have had smartphones, if only so that they could communicate with others (and to make sure that their protest was not ignored). 
We have all been sucked in whether we wanted to be or not


----------



## rona

silvi said:


> We have all been sucked in whether we wanted to be or not


Speak for yourself...............................


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Speak for yourself...............................


I thought you'd given up conversing with me?


----------



## noushka05

Ang2 said:


> No they are not! They are scrapping humans rights so that foreign criminals, rapists and murderers cant use the Human Rights Act to milk the legal system and avoid deportation.


You really don't understand whats been thrown away, do you 





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Some rich people but not all rich people. Take my FIL for instance (now departed). He was a very wealthy man, lived in a house overlooking Poole Harbour, sent two kids to private school, holidays on the QE2 every year but he started out from a poor background, his father died when he was 5 and he was brought up by his mother - not easy in the 1920's when there was no welfare state. He didn't get in to grammer school but still managed by hard work and taking every opportunity offered to him to improve his life and that of his mother. He worked very hard to make his money and I find it sad that so many people in this country automatically resent anyone who has a strong work ethic, its like inverted snobbery. He was a tough father to my OH, nothing handed to him on a plate, he loaned us a couple of thousand pounds for the deposit on our first house and charged us 3% above the bank rate of interest on it. Despite going to public school my OH left with nothing more than a few O'levels and did a few low paid jobs before deciding to go back to school at 24 and study until he was 30 to get the qualifications he needed for his chosen career. We need to help people re train and gain skills needed for the jobs that are out there but when you have created a system that means working means taking a cut in income because your benefits are higher than low paid jobs you know something has to change.
> 
> Noush the NHS is not finished. If you need an ambulance tomorrow you will get one - without having to show insurance papers or pay any money, if you have an accident you will be treated and operated on if necessary and if you have cancer you will still get your treatment free of charge. There may be some tinkering going on and perhaps we do have to face up to change which we all know is scary but the NHS is not dead/finished and I think its a bit irresponsible to keep saying it is. We have private insurance (which actually costs less for two adults than our dogs insurance per month) but the last two times we have needed anything it has been quicker and easier to use the NHS.


I certainly don't resent anyone with a strong work ethic. I come from a family of grafters. My oh & his family are grafters. Infact just about everyone i know well is too lol Maybe not wealthy grafters, but grafters just the same lol. All this government has done is to drive people into poverty. And most people on benefits are working for their poverty. But what the tories are very good is dividing and conquering, turning neighbour against neighbour while the ones who have caused the economic crisis get rewarded & the ones who are really robbing us blind get away with it.

You may not be affected as yet, but this is whats happened in the first five years of a tory government - i can provide links to those statistics if you like?



Things might seem ok for you now, but our NHS is dying . Do you know what TTIP is RPH? Once the deal is done, the American corporations will carve up the profitable parts, our precious NHS will be gone forever.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> But they are acting against democracy of this country, just what those poor souls died for.
> Why should a few try and force their views on others?


And its our democratic right to protest, dont forget that Rona. And the protesters have plenty of legitimate reasons to be angry.


----------



## noushka05

I feel sick with worry inside, but had to smile at this.


----------



## MollySmith

Shoshannah said:


> @JANICE199 I would like to ask a genuine question that may be interpreted as a dig, but I don't intend to be (it is difficult to get across in mere words on a forum).
> 
> It is clear from your posts that you are unhappy with the election result and vehemently opposed to the Tories.
> 
> I was wondering:
> a) whether a Labour/UKIP/Green/Lib Dem (choise your poison) victory would have incited similar comments.
> b) whether there is any electable party that would NOT have incited similar comments.
> c) if 'yes' to b, then why did you choose not to vote for them?
> 
> I'm totally on board with the freedom to choose not to vote, and we've had that discussion many a time on PF, *but I am finding it genuinely difficult to understand why you can be so angry with the result of an election you did not vote in when there is (presumably) a result out there that would have made you happier, but a result you chose not to vote for?*
> 
> Should none of us have voted at all, so that we cannot be criticised for making the 'wrong' vote by those who did not vote at all?
> 
> I'm reading that back now and it still seems like a dig, but I can't phrase it any other way, sorry - I'm just interested to hear your slant on it.


Me too  and again like you, it's not a dig but I cannot understand why someone who seems interested in politics doesn't exercise the right to vote and I believe never has. The apathy party, 34% is the biggest in this election so I don't buy that votes don't make a difference, we might all just give up at this point. Also trying to put this tactfully and probably failing.


----------



## JANICE199

Shoshannah said:


> @JANICE199 I would like to ask a genuine question that may be interpreted as a dig, but I don't intend to be (it is difficult to get across in mere words on a forum).
> 
> It is clear from your posts that you are unhappy with the election result and vehemently opposed to the Tories.
> 
> I was wondering:
> a) whether a Labour/UKIP/Green/Lib Dem (choise your poison) victory would have incited similar comments.
> b) whether there is any electable party that would NOT have incited similar comments.
> c) if 'yes' to b, then why did you choose not to vote for them?
> 
> I'm totally on board with the freedom to choose not to vote, and we've had that discussion many a time on PF, but I am finding it genuinely difficult to understand why you can be so angry with the result of an election you did not vote in when there is (presumably) a result out there that would have made you happier, but a result you chose not to vote for?
> 
> Should none of us have voted at all, so that we cannot be criticised for making the 'wrong' vote by those who did not vote at all?
> 
> I'm reading that back now and it still seems like a dig, but I can't phrase it any other way, sorry - I'm just interested to hear your slant on it.


*I genuinely thank you for this post, and i wish i could give you rep. for it.*
*I'm not very good at explaining myself in text, but i will try.*
*Hand on heart, i wouldn't give a damn for what party got in. What i do care about are, PEOPLE.*
*I honestly thought that Maggie Thatcher was bad, ( and she did the like of me a favour, re. right to buy). But as one of those people, i feel we sold our souls to the devil. WHY? Because she, along with her government cheated everyone.*
*I will add this, this government, WILL finish off what Maggie started.*
*Can i just add, Cameron and his government have had no bad effect on me, so surely this must say something about how and why i feel the way i do.*


----------



## JANICE199

noushka05 said:


> I feel sick with worry inside, but had to smile at this.


I saw this too and had to smile.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Noush you might not mean it but your posts come across as if you are patronising me and think I don't know anything about life and its hardships or struggles. I'm pretty fed up with left wing voters trying to make out they are the only ones who care about anything and the rest of us are self serving, harsh and cruel. Its utter crap. People from all walks of life are self serving/selfish and cruel and people from all walks of life care and give to others. Voting is not just about the welfare state - without a thriving economy where businesses feel confident more people will be unemployed and need help which has to be paid for by someone. I'm still just as happy to help my neighbours if they need it or help my relatives if they need it or give to charity. I remember at Christmas I posted a thread about Mary's Meals and a scheme to lay another place at the table - for the cost of the average person's Christmas dinner you could feed a child in Africa for a year. I don't think I got any responses  

Why are we fighting each other? We had a democratic election and now we have the result so lets just get on with it and carry on helping each other when we can.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> I feel sick with worry inside, but had to smile at this.


Ha Ha. As long as he doesn't expect to claim benefits when his shop shuts down. When did you last see a shop keeper put up a sign saying no left wingers in here please or poor people shop elsewhere.


----------



## JANICE199

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Noush you might not mean it but your posts come across as if you are patronising me and think I don't know anything about life and its hardships or struggles. I'm pretty fed up with left wing voters trying to make out they are the only ones who care about anything and the rest of us are self serving, harsh and cruel. Its utter crap. People from all walks of life are self serving/selfish and cruel and people from all walks of life care and give to others. Voting is not just about the welfare state - without a thriving economy where businesses feel confident more people will be unemployed and need help which has to be paid for by someone. I'm still just as happy to help my neighbours if they need it or help my relatives if they need it or give to charity. I remember at Christmas I posted a thread about Mary's Meals and a scheme to lay another place at the table - for the cost of the average person's Christmas dinner you could feed a child in Africa for a year. I don't think I got any responses
> 
> Why are we fighting each other?  We had a democratic election and now we have the result so lets just get on with it and carry on helping each other when we can.


*We are fighting each other because of the media we have been fed. We as ordinary folk should stand together.*


----------



## rona

JANICE199 said:


> *We are fighting each other because of the media we have been fed. We as ordinary folk should stnd together.*


Yep, the media have a lot to answer for. All those vulnerable people now scared because of their twisting of the truth

That includes those on social media


----------



## Colliebarmy

JANICE199 said:


> I saw this too and had to smile.


As its illegal under the Trading Standards act to charge more than the displayed price for an item id love to pop in and ask for the till receipt and take a pic of the shelf price.....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

rona said:


> Yep, the media have a lot to answer for. All those vulnerable people now scared because of their twisting of the truth


Why do you assume everyone votes according to the media - I don't read the papers, don't have time to catch the news on TV very often and am not on any social networking site apart from a couple of pet forums. Not every one follows what celebs and career journalists say or think.


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> Yep, the media have a lot to answer for. All those vulnerable people now scared because of their twisting of the truth


*Hello rona, are you trying to say " our" media tells us the truth? lmfao, this from someone who "thought" that when the media said, (about the recent protest)that only 100 protesters were involved. Please give some of us , some credit.:Arghh*


----------



## rona

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Why do you assume everyone votes according to the media - I don't read the papers, don't have time to catch the news on TV very often and am not on any social networking site apart from a couple of pet forums. Not every one follows what celebs and career journalists say or think.


I don't think they do. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion from my post


----------



## rona

JANICE199 said:


> *Hello rona, are you trying to say " our" media tells us the truth? lmfao, this from someone who "thought" that when the media said, (about the recent protest)that only 100 protesters were involved. Please give some of us , some credit.:Arghh*


No!!!


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> No!!!


 *Thank god for that! lol*


----------



## Satori

Let's all just look on the bright side.

With Miliband, Balls, Clegg and Farage all out of work, next year's 'I'm a Celebrity' ought to be a doozy.


----------



## Happy Paws2

JANICE199 said:


> * Please give some of us , some credit.:Arghh*


No why should we, that's why we have the tories back in.


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Speak for yourself...............................


Actually, my previous throw away remark was childish of me and I apoligise.
(Hoover has just broken down if that's any excuse....)

What I meant in us all being sucked in was they we are all forced to buy things that we now think we must have.
Even the fact that we are all on here debating the General Election shows that we have all succumbed to the notion that we need some form of computer (however old it is and mine is old.... ) and that we need to communicate via broadband, fibre optic, 3G, 4G, or whatever.

My children have to go online to find their homework and post their answers online too.
So we need more than one pc/laptop/tablet...

If we lost our broadband access tomorrow, we would be stuck, as would millions of others.

If some of us lost our mobile phones we would also be stuck, as nowadays everyone appears to need our mobile address for instant access.
And in that sense we have become a nation that wants our answers NOW and cannot understand why occasionally we can't.

Even the fact I am now pulling my hair out trying to fix the hoover, when I know its constant break downs are probably the result of controlled obsolescence and that I will have to fork out the money to buy a new one, means that I am sucked in to this 'buy new' notion as much as anyone else.

But anyway, that's part of what I meant.
I could go on....but I wont


----------



## noushka05

Ive missed loads of posts back there!:Wideyed lol Seen more I want to reply to when i get chance.



Ang2 said:


> Noush, so how do you feel about whole new cities being built to accommodate the soaring population as it heads towards 100 Million? Our countryside will be decimated, along with wildlife and habitats.


We certainly need affordable social housing. The Greens had a great policy for this - https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/...uncement-500,000-social-rented-homes-by-2020/. The social cleansing of cities is utterly shameful, throwing people out of their homes to sell the land to developers isnt helping the housing crisis either - OR the homeless crisis .

The removal of legislation that has protected our countryside for years will see its devastation. When the Infrastructure Bill passed the Tories removed all obstacles for developers to trash & concrete over it. The fossil fuel industry can come in and frack with little regulation. Our publicly owned forests, ancient woodlands, rare habitat are all now at risk, thanks to the 'Greenest Government Ever'!. Nothing must stand in the way of profit, nothing is sacred no matter how beautiful or rare. Nobody with a passion for nature could vote for these ENVIRONMENTAL VANDALS - or ukip.





rona said:


> This is the biggest threat.
> 
> Stop people moving here and stop people breeding out of control.....................


Its not.


----------



## silvi

noushka05 said:


>


Excellent point.


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> You really don't understand whats been thrown away, do you
> 
> "Meme"


You accuse others of listening to media bias yet provide only a biased viewpoint yourself. Are you really pushing that it's simply those rights listed. Are you saying they are never exploited?

How about the rights of the child. In the EU it states something like "in all decisions the well being of the child should be of primary consideration." This right was frequently ignored by the NUT union in the past (don't know about other unions but figures suggest they were the same). They counted their members more important. Was this tackled by labour or would they ever be prepared to right things when unions are in the wrong? To check this, find out how many teachers were actually sacked from teaching before 2011. Instead they were simply moved, with a good references under pressure from the union to come to an accommodation. Only found out about this by the way when I investigated the subject when my daughter had a teacher, here in Germany, with diagnosed schizophrenia, who was being backed by the authorities and was being moved from school to school when complaints were too loud. Good demonstration of the fact it's not always greener pastures elsewhere.

Then there is the right to be innocent until proven guilty, a right often ignored by those on social media.

How often do we actually see links here on these forums which provide a balanced viewpoint? Tories going to reinstate fox hunting when the truth is Tory leadership are going to attempt to with a free vote which means party affiliation isn't necessarily how people will vote.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> How often do we actually see links here on these forums which provide a balanced viewpoint? Tories going to reinstate fox hunting when the truth is Tory leadership are going to attempt to with a free vote which means party affiliation isn't necessarily how people will vote.


Not Noushka (obviously) but I would like to answer this small point from your post, while letting Noushka answer the rest, as that would take a lot longer .

I think the thing about the Tories offering a free vote on foxhunting is because they used it as part of their 'election winning' campaign.
So voters (who bothered to read the manifesto) knew it was there.

In the case of the anti-fox hunting Tory voters, they simply hoped that the free vote wouldn't get passed.
While in the case of the pro-hunt brigade, this was part of a vote winning package for them.

But like it or not, the fact that the Tories even think it is necessary to provide a debate and a vote on repealing the Act which made fox hunting illegal, does say something about their values.


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Noush you might not mean it but your posts come across as if you are patronising me and think I don't know anything about life and its hardships or struggles. I'm pretty fed up with left wing voters trying to make out they are the only ones who care about anything and the rest of us are self serving, harsh and cruel. Its utter crap. People from all walks of life are self serving/selfish and cruel and people from all walks of life care and give to others. Voting is not just about the welfare state - without a thriving economy where businesses feel confident more people will be unemployed and need help which has to be paid for by someone. I'm still just as happy to help my neighbours if they need it or help my relatives if they need it or give to charity. I remember at Christmas I posted a thread about Mary's Meals and a scheme to lay another place at the table - for the cost of the average person's Christmas dinner you could feed a child in Africa for a year. I don't think I got any responses
> 
> Why are we fighting each other? We had a democratic election and now we have the result so lets just get on with it and carry on helping each other when we can.


I apologise RPH, I really dont mean to come across patronising with you of all people. I've always thought you are a really nice person & still do. Its just that the tories polices are so cruel & more people are suffering than ever before under any modern government. I hardly dare say this now - but the economy isn't thriving. Austerity is a con to strip our welfare state & steal our public assets & tens of thousands of our most vulnerable people are suffering - while the wealth of the richest has doubled. I dont think anyone can say Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman doesnt know what hes talking about. Please take a look RPH http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

I really dont want to fight with you of all people  I'm just scared for everything that matters to me, its all at risk, and i fear the worst.


----------



## Colliebarmy

Happy Paws said:


> No why should we, that's why we have the tories back in.


yes, we have 5 years of austerity, benefit cuts, tax rises, mega inflation, more EU migrants, a failing NHS, underfunded Armed forces, nuns forced into prostitution and.....oh, hang on, forget the nuns......ok, and OAP's being exported to somewhere wet and cold, like....Wales maybe.


----------



## MyMillie

Colliebarmy said....
yes, we have 5 years of austerity, benefit cuts, tax rises, mega inflation, more EU migrants, a failing NHS, underfunded Armed forces, nuns forced into prostitution and.....oh, hang on, forget the nuns......ok, and OAP's being exported to somewhere wet and cold, like....Wales maybe.

I for one will be coming back to this thread in a couple of years time, but! only IF I can still afford to have a pc and broadband,...and I will be the first person to hold my hands up and say "Yep you were right" were still here and thriving!, but for now I wont hold my breath for this to be true,.... I'm a pensioner with many ailments and would love to be sent to wet and cold Wales ... change is as good as a rest! so they say... but seriously, I am in fear for my children and grandchildren I leave behind, all of this has scared me beyond belief...and I'm not just talking about the election, there are many factors leading up to this, it has just proved to me what "The big agenda" really is in it all...................NOT GOOD!!


----------



## Changes

There are a few points here but to be honest I haven't got time to read the whole thread,

I am going to look at one point that jumped out at me, housing - 

Last year in England 2013/2014 people sleeping on the streets rose by 77% (since 2010) meaning that 6508 people had no shelter. 
As repoted by CRISIS: 111,960 households applied to their local authority for homelessness assistance in 2013/14, 26% rise since 2009/10. However just over 52,000 were accepted as homeless this was a 31 per cent rise since 2009/10.

How many homes do we need more than 100,000? 

Where are we going to build all these new homes? What if we didn't have to, currently in England there are more than 600,000 empty homes.

We don't have a housing crisis, we have an empty property criisis.


----------



## MollySmith

This from Phillipa Perry on Election Trauma - which I do think is a very real thing

"*Be sad, be sorry.* *You don't have to smile or pretend everything's OK.*

It felt like a punch in the stomach when I saw the exit polls. It was a shock. I woke up at about 6am, looked at Twitter and couldn't stop crying. I had allowed myself to get hopeful and these were tears of disappointment.

I feel so sad about Ed Miliband resigning. In the past weeks he was getting into his stride, becoming more confident at being himself, being someone we could relate to and trust. It's like the breakup of a relationship and you have to give yourself time to adjust. You can't expect to feel better tomorrow. But I expect to regain full equilibrium within a month.

*Try not to hate, or to blame, or think of things in extreme terms of right or wrong.*
When we have a shock, we go into black-and-white thinking. We need to get out of this. If we are hating and blaming, we are not going to be functional. Check your mindset. Don't think we're doomed. You need to observe yourself being angry and hateful, notice that it's a phase you are going through and know that there is something more useful you are going to do. Feeling glee for more than moments about the Lib Dem or Ukip defeat is all-or-nothing thinking. It's grabbing comfort where you can and is of no lasting benefit.

*Feeling helpless and impotent is not great for getting over feeling sad.*
Do something - join a political party to get involved in policy-making. I noticed on social media that a number of people intend to do just this.

*We must slow down discussions. *
We need to try to understand the other rather than shout over them. Nobody is going to change their mind if someone shouts at them or dismisses them. What the Conservatives have done is make a connection with the electorate that Labour failed to. We feel connected with our tribe and think everyone feels the same, but this election has shown that other people don't know what we are on about.

*Don't write anyone off as plain evil.*
Let's stop assuming the worst of our so-called enemies. We need to learn to empathise and to make an effort to understand the feelings beneath the behaviour of people who voted for rightwing parties. It's tempting to write them off as uncaring, selfish or persecutory, but that won't solve anything. I need to feel what it's like to believe that someone is after all my money and resources and imagine what it's like to think people coming into this country will not add to our resources but take them away. Hating the electorate for being stupid, however satisfying in the short-term, will make things much worse. I think probably everyone means well in their own way. If I think that, I start to feel more upbeat and less despairing.

*However much you may despise some of the Conservative philosophy, it is not necessarily all bad.*
Look - they got gay marriage through. Let's not look for the worst and be forever cynical. It won't make us happier or solve anything.

*Do something to self-nurture.* Spend some time with like-minded friends so you can console each other. It may sound silly but after drawing faces on fruit with a friend on Friday morning, I started to feel a bit better. We spent time face to face and concentrated on something that wasn't about how sad we felt. Joke, even if the humour is dark. My husband had to catch a flight on Friday. I took a picture of him on the pavement holding his passport and tweeted: "Grayson's leaving the country. I'm gonna miss him."

Drawing, reading, knitting - do whatever it is you need to do to regroup and pick yourself up."


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

rona said:


> I don't think they do. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion from my post


Sorry Rona I actually quoted Janice so have no idea why your name came up for the quote.


----------



## MyMillie

The trying to quote thing is doing my head in on this new format!! I can see its going to cause Sooo much unnecessary upset  ....all the other stuff is great


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> I apologise RPH, I really dont mean to come across patronising with you of all people. I've always thought you are a really nice person & still do. Its just that the tories polices are so cruel & more people are suffering than ever before under any modern government. I hardly dare say this now - but the economy isn't thriving. Austerity is a con to strip our welfare state & steal our public assets & tens of thousands of our most vulnerable people are suffering - while the wealth of the richest has doubled. I dont think anyone can say Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman doesnt know what hes talking about. Please take a look RPH http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
> 
> I really dont want to fight with you of all people  I'm just scared for everything that matters to me, its all at risk, and i fear the worst.


Thank you Noush - I don't want to fight with you either and I do understand why people feel upset. I'm just not going to sit back and have anyone who voted tory referred to as "thick" "brain washed by the media" and "harsh/cruel/self centred" because that is unfair and rubbish. I've read your link and I'm afraid it doesn't change my mind about anything. In 2008,9 and 10 our business took a huge hit, we were down by 2/3 of our income and wondered if we would survive, since 2011 things have really improved and there is generally a positive air and confidence that things are improving across many businesses not just ours which is property related. I understand why people are worried but listen my mother has been on benefits (unemployment then sickness then retirement topped up with pension credit) for over 30 years since she was 45. She has multiple health issues now but still gets excellent care from our NHS both from her GP and from the hospital when needed under various specialities. None of her benefits have been cut and as far as I can tell she is no worse off than she was under labour. I think everyone needs to calm down.


----------



## Ang2

noushka05 said:


> Due to tory Austerity policies homelessness has soared. In 2013, ex service personnel accounted for one in 10 rough sleepers. The people out demonstrating are there because of issues like this. Do you know how your hubbys Grandfather feels about a government that has caused all this misery & suffering ? I know it upsets me more than the actions of a ******** defacing a memorial.
> 
> _Up to 9,000 British heroes who served Queen and country are homeless after leaving the military, a Sunday Mirror investigation reveals today.
> 
> Shockingly, ex-service personnel account for one in 10 rough sleepers across the UK.
> 
> And charities have warned that the problem of homelessness among former soldiers, sailors and airmen is a "ticking time bomb" which will only get worse if urgent action isn't taken.
> 
> Yesterday Simon Weston OBE, who suffered serious burns in the Falklands War, accused the Government of "betraying" veterans after learning of the disturbing numbers without a home._


Noush, are you aware of UKIP's policies regarding ex servicemen? Its one of their main aims, to give ex servicemen better pensions, assistance, and treatment. Nigel has openly spoken about how angry he is about the way they have been treated.


----------



## cheekyscrip

Listen...no gov and no state will provide us with happiness and so on.

Tories or Lab we have to carry on our best efforts...stop that dummy spitting!...

People I knew...friends died in demos cum street fight...to have right to vote for more than one and Only Truly people Party...
This is why I find I disturbing if people go to demonstrate against gov chosen by the people.

There are still countries with one and only socialist etc..party.
Really would you like to live in place like Russia where even dead vote for Putin? Or China.
North Korea?
Start respecting your own democracy..
Which is dream for so many others...
Britain from Magna Charta was a role model..
Those demos show it is no longer...

Noush.

You must understand what message that sends for all who are still fighting for democracy.


Respect.


----------



## smoking guns

I have only been reading but keeping out of this thread, but when I got to page 33 I had to stop because the amount of people who claim they hate benefit scroungers but oh, it's a shame what will happen to those who really need the help, was really riling me up.

Is it not better to be giving those people who need benefits to merely _survive_ and then a small minority who cheat the system slip through the net? Because they are just that - a small minority. I would rather live in a society where the taxes I pay from my very average income (or probably below average, for the capital) go towards both people who are struggling _as well as scroungers_ than a society where, although the number of benefits cheats has dropped, lots of people are also committing suicide because they cannot afford to live because they've been told they can work despite what medical practitioners say.

My partner works for Sense, the deafblind charity, and previous to that he volunteered for a housing benefits charity. Every day he comes home and tells me stories of people who are denied help simply because the assessors actually have to meet a quota of how many people they refuse. The stories have stacked up higher and higher to the point where I despair that our government is leading us to leave people to deal with their absolute poverty. Here's a point - previous to working at these charities (since last year), he was a staunch Tory because he believed in personal achievement and high aspirations, that people who get to the top deserve to be there. He had hopes of becoming a corporate lawyer because that was there the money was. Now? Now he feels like he's had his eyes opened to just the sheer number of people who really really _really_ need help.

I'm not telling you all this because I want you to congratulate him, to tell him how great he is for "seeing the light", but to highlight the fact that just because the only people you see claiming benefits are a handful of people trying to get around not working does not mean those are most of the people who are claiming.

If you want specific anecdotes of the people my partner has encountered, just ask.


----------



## MyMillie

Just got this in an email.... take from it what you will! ? 
http://www.naturalnews.com/049655_emotional_domination_mind_control_engineered_crisis.html


----------



## MyMillie

smoking guns said:


> I have only been reading but keeping out of this thread, but when I got to page 33 I had to stop because the amount of people who claim they hate benefit scroungers but oh, it's a shame what will happen to those who really need the help, was really riling me up.
> 
> Is it not better to be giving those people who need benefits to merely _survive_ and then a small minority who cheat the system slip through the net? Because they are just that - a small minority. I would rather live in a society where the taxes I pay from my very average income (or probably below average, for the capital) go towards both people who are struggling _as well as scroungers_ than a society where, although the number of benefits cheats has dropped, lots of people are also committing suicide because they cannot afford to live because they've been told they can work despite what medical practitioners say.
> 
> My partner works for Sense, the deafblind charity, and previous to that he volunteered for a housing benefits charity. Every day he comes home and tells me stories of people who are denied help simply because the assessors actually have to meet a quota of how many people they refuse. The stories have stacked up higher and higher to the point where I despair that our government is leading us to leave people to deal with their absolute poverty. Here's a point - previous to working at these charities (since last year), he was a staunch Tory because he believed in personal achievement and high aspirations, that people who get to the top deserve to be there. He had hopes of becoming a corporate lawyer because that was there the money was. Now? Now he feels like he's had his eyes opened to just the sheer number of people who really really _really_ need help.
> 
> I'm not telling you all this because I want you to congratulate him, to tell him how great he is for "seeing the light", but to highlight the fact that just because the only people you see claiming benefits are a handful of people trying to get around not working does not mean those are most of the people who are claiming.
> 
> If you want specific anecdotes of the people my partner has encountered, just ask.


Such an excellent post!!... wish the rep button was still here, bless you and your partner...respect to you both!


----------



## Goblin

smoking guns said:


> Is it not better to be giving those people who need benefits to merely _survive_ and then a small minority who cheat the system slip through the net?


No it isn't. Simple reason. By doing that and encouraging it you are trapping generations on benefit with all the negatives that creates including self esteem of the people concerned. What's needed are programs to enhance job prospects or even community programs to actually make people feel valued and worthwhile and to get people out into the workplace where possible (and I don't mean pointless jobs). Tories are not doing the latter but throwing money at the problem and encouraging more people to rely on benefits isn't the solution either.

Let me ask a question.. If 2 generations of a family are on benefit.. what are the chances the 3th generation will also be? It's a rut people find hard to get out of. The welfare system is one that encourages dependency.


----------



## rona

smoking guns said:


> I have only been reading but keeping out of this thread, but when I got to page 33 I had to stop because the amount of people who claim they hate benefit scroungers but oh, it's a shame what will happen to those who really need the help, was really riling me up.
> 
> Is it not better to be giving those people who need benefits to merely _survive_ and then a small minority who cheat the system slip through the net? Because they are just that - a small minority. I would rather live in a society where the taxes I pay from my very average income (or probably below average, for the capital) go towards both people who are struggling _as well as scroungers_ than a society where, although the number of benefits cheats has dropped, lots of people are also committing suicide because they cannot afford to live because they've been told they can work despite what medical practitioners say.
> 
> My partner works for Sense, the deafblind charity, and previous to that he volunteered for a housing benefits charity. Every day he comes home and tells me stories of people who are denied help simply because the assessors actually have to meet a quota of how many people they refuse. The stories have stacked up higher and higher to the point where I despair that our government is leading us to leave people to deal with their absolute poverty. Here's a point - previous to working at these charities (since last year), he was a staunch Tory because he believed in personal achievement and high aspirations, that people who get to the top deserve to be there. He had hopes of becoming a corporate lawyer because that was there the money was. Now? Now he feels like he's had his eyes opened to just the sheer number of people who really really _really_ need help.
> 
> I'm not telling you all this because I want you to congratulate him, to tell him how great he is for "seeing the light", but to highlight the fact that just because the only people you see claiming benefits are a handful of people trying to get around not working does not mean those are most of the people who are claiming.
> 
> If you want specific anecdotes of the people my partner has encountered, just ask.


Surely in his line of work he will be helping those in need? Therefore he will have a rather one sided view of things.
Just because he has seen that, doesn't stop what others have seen.
The people I know on benefits, that's not scroungers but people genuinely on benefits, are far better off than I


----------



## smoking guns

Goblin said:


> No it isn't. Simple reason. By doing that and encouraging it you are trapping generations on benefit with all the negatives that creates including self esteem of the people concerned. What's needed are programs to enhance job prospects or even community programs to actually make people feel valued and worthwhile and to get people out into the workplace where possible (and I don't mean pointless jobs). Tories are not doing the latter but throwing money at the problem and encouraging more people to rely on benefits isn't the solution either.
> 
> Let me ask a question.. If 2 generations of a family are on benefit.. what are the chances the 3th generation will also be? It's a rut people find hard to get out of? The welfare system is one that encourages dependency.


I don't like there being people abusing the system just as much as the next person but cutting benefits to such an extreme as the Conservative government will be doing is not the answer. I agree, I think means testing needs to be fixed so that the needy can get the help and the scroungers cannot. But since no parties will be doing this, I believe that choosing not to let so many destitute people fade away is the better choice.



rona said:


> Surely in his line of work he will be helping those in need? Therefore he will have a rather one sided view of things.
> Just because he has seen that, doesn't stop what others have seen.
> The people I know on benefits, that's not scroungers but people genuinely on benefits, are far better off than I


By your logic, you would be just as one sided as he may be. How many domestic torture victims who can't get the help to get away from their abusers have you come into contact with? How many deaf and partially-sighted people who have had their support cut to a barely liveable standard have you spoken to? Yes I won't deny that my partner may be seeing their side more but I still stand by my belief that I'd rather be in a society that helps these people than one that doesn't.

The mention of these people "living better than you do"... Well honestly you sound bitter and I think that is a shame. How do you know what they compromise to be able to go on holiday? Do you know every single thing about their finances? If not then I don't think it's up to you to judge.


----------



## MyMillie

rona said:


> Surely in his line of work he will be helping those in need? Therefore he will have a rather one sided view of things.
> Just because he has seen that, doesn't stop what others have seen.
> The people I know on benefits, that's not scroungers but people genuinely on benefits, are far better off than I


A ONE SIDED VIEW!!! PHEW!!.... I am disgusted to even partake in having answering your "reply" to the lovely poster whos partner is trying to help!!.... the end of your statement sums it all up.... "not scroungers but people genuinely on benefits, are far better off than I"....Is this the reason your so bitter, that even the ones who are In your words NOT scroungers are better off than you


----------



## Ang2

And so it begins..............

*EU says UK must dole out MORE benefits: Brussels takes legal action to force Britain to lift restrictions on migrants claiming handouts *

*Britain could be forced to pay benefits to more migrants under EU plans *
*European Commission taking legal action to stop restrictions on benefits*
*Comes days after David Cameron pledged to cut handouts to migrants*
*Figures show 24,000 families are currently claiming for children abroad *
By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor For The Mail On Sunday

Published: 23:08, 29 November 2014 | Updated: 14:40, 30 November 2014
.co.uk/news/article-2854419/EU-says-UK-dole-benefits-Brussels-takes-legal-action-force-Britain-lift-restrictions-migrants-claiming-handouts.html#ixzz3Zm4rsyEp 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail

EU plans to impose migrant quotas forcing states to 'share' burden of influx

Proposal to divide up numbers between member countries in wake of Mediterranean crisis could pit Germany, which backs scheme, against UK
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ssion-migrant-quota-plan-mediterranean-crisis


----------



## Goblin

smoking guns said:


> I don't like there being people abusing the system just as much as the next person but cutting benefits to such an extreme as the Conservative government will be doing is not the answer. I agree, I think means testing needs to be fixed so that the needy can get the help and the scroungers cannot. But since no parties will be doing this, I believe that choosing not to let so many destitute people fade away is the better choice.


There are no good answers but again we talk about personal opinion, my experience and belief is that labour would actually encourage and trap more people into welfare for the long term. Better or should I say fairer means testing (not trying to reach targets) is something I think most can agree on but you say you were riled up by people saying effectively that exact thing. It's not that people agree with the fact that those who need help aren't getting it.

Now personally I believe the conservatives are a better choice than labour but if you drag yourself through my earlier posts (although possibly in another thread thinking about it) you'll also see I said i almost wished for a minority government partly as this may have acted as a brake on excessive policies . I do not think a labour government would be could for the UK in general especially for the majority. I don't know any millionaires, most people I know work hard and try to support their families trying to juggle their finances. I'll argue against the fact that labour would fix everything.


----------



## bearcub

noushka05 said:


> I feel sick with worry inside, but had to smile at this.


I know that the above is tongue in cheek, but can anyone explain why this sort of intolerance is seen as acceptable?


----------



## MCWillow

MyMillie said:


> A ONE SIDED VIEW!!! PHEW!!.... I am disgusted to even partake in having answering your "reply" to the lovely poster whos partner is trying to help!!.... the end of your statement sums it all up.... "not scroungers but people genuinely on benefits, are far better off than I"....Is this the reason your so bitter, that even the ones who are In your words NOT scroungers are better off than you


Any need for this? _Really?
_
Rona is one of the least bitter, and most level headed posters, on this forum - and no, I don't always agree with what she is saying.

I also work for a charity. I try to help people every single day. And I get pissed off that people that are on benefits are far better off than I am. Why should I _not_ be pissed off about that?

Why should I _not_ be pissed off, that I work full time, and yet people that don't work at all are better off than me?

The government (I dont care what bloody goverment, because not one of them has done it so far) either needs to raise the minimum wage so people who work can earn a_ living_ wage, or they need to make sure being on benefits doesn't pay more than actually _working_ for a living.

I can't see whats so hard to understand TBH.


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you Noush - I don't want to fight with you either and I do understand why people feel upset. I'm just not going to sit back and have anyone who voted tory referred to as "thick" "brain washed by the media" and "harsh/cruel/self centred" because that is unfair and rubbish. I've read your link and I'm afraid it doesn't change my mind about anything. In 2008,9 and 10 our business took a huge hit, we were down by 2/3 of our income and wondered if we would survive, since 2011 things have really improved and there is generally a positive air and confidence that things are improving across many businesses not just ours which is property related. I understand why people are worried but listen my mother has been on benefits (unemployment then sickness then retirement topped up with pension credit) for over 30 years since she was 45. She has multiple health issues now but still gets excellent care from our NHS both from her GP and from the hospital when needed under various specialities. None of her benefits have been cut and as far as I can tell she is no worse off than she was under labour. I think everyone needs to calm down.


@rottiepointerhouse,
It is good that your mother has always received good enough benefits to help her get by and it is very good news that she now receives excellent health care. But her benefits have not been cut because she is a pensioner.

Benefit cuts have not included pension credits. The bedroom tax also does not apply to people over 65 (although some local authorities have tried to tell pensioners that it does).

Pensioners have also been given tax cuts (although these will apply mainly to the better-off pensioner who has savings). And of course they get cold weather payments and are helped with discounts on their energy bills (I know all this because my mother is also a pensioner).

In fact, overall, the coalition government left pensioners alone while they cut benefits to younger people and working families.

No problem with that - after all, the majority of pensioners have paid more into the system and no one wants to see the elderly suffer from austerity cuts.

But this has also meant that the average pensioner on benefits will feel relatively safe financially under a Tory government, and not so inclined to look to another party to vote for.

Of course, they will be suffering from cuts to the NHS and to local authority spending just like everyone else.
But they have been buffered more than the rest of us.......

Of course that's so far.... As it appears that the next round of cuts will affect pensioners too.
But this is being kept fairly quiet at the moment.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Let me ask a question.. If 2 generations of a family are on benefit.. what are the chances the 3th generation will also be? It's a rut people find hard to get out of. The welfare system is one that encourages dependency.


There is a strong chance that the 3rd generation will also be on benefits, but not so much because their dependency is encouraged, but for the very reasons that saw their parents and grandparents out of work.

It could well be that they live in a low-employment area (and cannot afford a bike to get on to get away from there...).
It could be that they live in an area where education is poor, so it is harder to get the qualifications needed to search for a decent job.
And yes, it could be that they have seen what has happened to previous generations and have given up hope.

So, cutting the welfare system will not encourage these people to get off of benefits. It will simply make their lives harder.

What they need is hope, a better education, training for _real_ jobs (not just training to get them off of JSA for a few weeks) and a belief that things will be better in the future.
And then they might just go out and try to improve their lives; because they will not be battling empty promises.


----------



## Waterlily

MyMillie said:


> A ONE SIDED VIEW!!! PHEW!!.... I am disgusted to even partake in having answering your "reply" to the lovely poster whos partner is trying to help!!.... the end of your statement sums it all up.... "not scroungers but people genuinely on benefits, are far better off than I"....Is this the reason your so bitter, that even the ones who are In your words NOT scroungers are better off than you


Bloody oath someone would be bitter over working their arse off and still struggling when people can live off the gov and sit pretty, ciggie in hand usually,. Its the same over here once you've paid your bills and rent/mortgage you have eff all left over after a hard week working while bludgers and others genuinely needing it have enough to piss it up over the weekend. 
Not to mention the discounted medical and scripts, discounted travel fares etc benefit receivers get while someone who works gets to pay full amount, with the pittance they have left over.


----------



## Ang2

Aint if funny how some think benefits are a god damn given right - and those who pay for it, should not even have the audacity to have a say! Some will try and silence our protests with screams of "nasty, evil, uncaring" etc. Some of us (tax payers) have less disposable income than those on benefits.

Meanwhile, my neighbour (unemployed) has just gone on holiday to Cornwall, in his mother's mobility car! Me? Im spending the summer digging out fence post holes, in order to save a bit of my hard earned cash!


----------



## bearcub

I think a good example of feeling perhaps slightly resentful would be me and OH who work very hard in the catering industry; we have modest incomes but too much to be supplemented with any type of working tax credits. Our friends live in rural Kent with their two young boys in a spacious 1940's council house, neither of them work - for reasons I'm not quite sure - and presumably at some point they'll be able to buy their home.

The mortgage we could raise at the moment wouldn't buy us anything, well, perhaps a garage, where we live and we can't leave work and move elsewhere so we feel very stuck. And I think there are millions like us who are stuck in the same situation. It can feel very much like we are forgotten about by all political parties sometimes.

Eta I'm not saying the fault in any way lies with those like our friends who I mentioned above. It's just a rather unbalanced situation which can, at times lead to us feeling fed up.


----------



## Lurcherlad

Goblin said:


> You only have to look at the "rat race" society to appreciate this. The need for the latest smartphone, car etc to be one up on people you know. I think you need to change this culture to reset the baseline. I wonder how many of the protestors have the latest smartphones?


And flat screen tellies - see the cardboard box being held up as a poster in the pic. Maybe they got it from Brighthouse - on tic?


----------



## Changes

Benefit scroungers...

It always makes me wonder why we have such a bad reaction to people claiming benefits as opposed to anyone else claiming from the system

I think it is because we have been conditioned that way

I am outraged that we pay for a family and all it's relatives and entourage, one family member spent £14k to go and watch the golf in a chartered plane. A day out at the golf for an annual salary, where is the justice in that, where are the out cries? One of the more prominent family members spent £246,160. on a chartered plane to go to a funeral. £35.7million pounds, that's how much that one family cost us the tax payer in one year! Do you know how many empty bedrooms these people have?

MP expenses cost us £103million that figure was for their expenses and was correct for 2014 - some MPs have been claiming for hotel expenses whilst renting out their London homes... 

Some people that hate how much the unemployed cost us and don't even mention these people, interesting to me is why, probably because our flag waving brain washed brains tell us that this one family is really special and important to us historically and for tourism, no one will come to visit if we get rid of them so we should be happy to pay for them to live in luxury and the unemployed, well they are a blight on the landscapes of our communities and we have been conditioned to despise them.


----------



## Lurcherlad

noushka05 said:


> I feel sick with worry inside, but had to smile at this.


Or, maybe the Tory voters will take their custom elsewhere, as they are clearly not welcome in this shop? Hmm, wonder how that will work out for Matt?

Probably not the greatest business decision. But, I guess he will blame the Tories and their policies when his business goes bust.


----------



## havoc

_Probably not the greatest business decision. But, I guess he will blame the Tories and their policies when his business goes bust_
Interesting that he has no issue with the third of the electorate who couldn't be bothered to vote at all. They are as much to blame for the result.


----------



## rona

MyMillie said:


> A ONE SIDED VIEW!!! PHEW!!.... I am disgusted to even partake in having answering your "reply" to the lovely poster whos partner is trying to help!!.... the end of your statement sums it all up.... "not scroungers but people genuinely on benefits, are far better off than I"....Is this the reason your so bitter, that even the ones who are In your words NOT scroungers are better off than you


No because those people are truly disabled and I would begrudge them very little, some have far more to cope with in life than I feel I ever could without becoming a jibbering wreck.

I don't mind helping those people who have worked, be they British or foriegn who have worked, paid taxes and looked after themselves. Why wouldn't we help people like that?

What I am pissed of about and even very angry about is when a 15 year old girl tells me that her life plan is to have kids she doesn't want, to get a house and then dumps those kids on grandparent while living the high life being pay for by the men she jumps into bed with, and her life plan works

When a man that abused his step daughter since the age of 3 can hoodwink the state for 20 years and now lives off the proceeds of his council house while claiming even more of our hard earned cash from the south of France.

All this time while people with serious mental illness are being told to "get a grip" or just handed out useless pills and sent away in distress.


----------



## Lurcherlad

silvi said:


> Not Noushka (obviously) but I would like to answer this small point from your post, while letting Noushka answer the rest, as that would take a lot longer .
> 
> I think the thing about the Tories offering a free vote on foxhunting is because they used it as part of their 'election winning' campaign.
> So voters (who bothered to read the manifesto) knew it was there.
> 
> In the case of the anti-fox hunting Tory voters, they simply hoped that the free vote wouldn't get passed.
> While in the case of the pro-hunt brigade, this was part of a vote winning package for them.
> 
> But like it or not, the fact that the Tories even think it is necessary to provide a debate and a vote on repealing the Act which made fox hunting illegal, does say something about their values.


But I voted Green and didn't agree with some of their manifesto pledges - it's virtually impossible to agree 100% with ANY party's pledges. To say that every Tory voter agrees with/supports EVERY pledge is just simply daft.

Everybody who disagrees with fox hunting should lobby their own MP in an effort to influence their vote - and even try and galvanise others to do the same. It's not a "done deal".

I have already lobbied my own MP on this (and a number of others) and his response made me NOT vote for him. If enough people lobby him he may change his mind. He needs their votes, after all, in the next GE.


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you Noush - I don't want to fight with you either and I do understand why people feel upset. I'm just not going to sit back and have anyone who voted tory referred to as "thick" "brain washed by the media" and "harsh/cruel/self centred" because that is unfair and rubbish. I've read your link and I'm afraid it doesn't change my mind about anything. In 2008,9 and 10 our business took a huge hit, we were down by 2/3 of our income and wondered if we would survive, since 2011 things have really improved and there is generally a positive air and confidence that things are improving across many businesses not just ours which is property related. I understand why people are worried but listen my mother has been on benefits (unemployment then sickness then retirement topped up with pension credit) for over 30 years since she was 45. She has multiple health issues now but still gets excellent care from our NHS both from her GP and from the hospital when needed under various specialities. None of her benefits have been cut and as far as I can tell she is no worse off than she was under labour. I think everyone needs to calm down.


Thank you too  And I'm genuinely glad things are going well for you and yours. Thousands of people are really struggling & really frightened though, so I guess this debate is set to continue - everywhere lol. And im sure there are going to be some huge protests for the NHS & as cuts hit more & more people . Plus the badger army marches look like continuing now  I think this is going to be a period of massive discontent.



Ang2 said:


> Noush, are you aware of UKIP's policies regarding ex servicemen? Its one of their main aims, to give ex servicemen better pensions, assistance, and treatment. Nigel has openly spoken about how angry he is about the way they have been treated.


A good aim it is too, but ukip are dangerously divisive and I'm afraid they don't have anything to offer ordinary people, the most vulnerable or the environment.



cheekyscrip said:


> Listen...no gov and no state will provide us with happiness and so on.
> 
> Tories or Lab we have to carry on our best efforts...stop that dummy spitting!...
> 
> People I knew...friends died in demos cum street fight...to have right to vote for more than one and Only Truly people Party...
> This is why I find I disturbing if people go to demonstrate against gov chosen by the people.
> 
> There are still countries with one and only socialist etc..party.
> Really would you like to live in place like Russia where even dead vote for Putin? Or China.
> North Korea?
> Start respecting your own democracy..
> Which is dream for so many others...
> Britain from Magna Charta was a role model..
> Those demos show it is no longer...
> 
> Noush.
> 
> You must understand what message that sends for all who are still fighting for democracy.
> 
> Respect.


I'm not spitting my dummy out Cheeky lol - I'm really frightened. People are understandably angry at the result imo. The tories told so many lies & led a dirty tricks campaign of fear&smear with the media in collusion - including disgracefully the bbc. Now I know not everyone was swayed by this, they voted Conservative for their own reasons. But just look how many have said they feared an SNP coalition? Its our democratic right to protest Cheeky, and the majority didn't vote for a tory government.

Tbh, no government has made me feel so full of fear & despair before. The suffering that has already been caused by them has been off the scale & now its set to get a whole lot worse. For both people and for animals. Then there's the environmental devastation we're now definitely going to see. They have made it law to extract all the fossil fuels they find when we are suppose to be leaving it in the ground and switching to renewables.

Catastrophic runaway climate change is only a few short years away from happening & this government are doing everything they can to ensure it happens as quickly as possible. What hope is there for our children? - for life on earth? One in six of the worlds species will be lost forever. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-faces-extinction-due-to-climate-change-study

Socialism doesn't equate to communism - just a fairer society 

Respect to you too xx


----------



## Satori

Changes said:


> I am outraged that we pay for a family and all it's relatives and entourage, one family member spent £14k to go and watch the golf in a chartered plane. A day out at the golf for an annual salary, where is the justice in that, where are the out cries? One of the more prominent family members spent £246,160. on a chartered plane to go to a funeral. £35.7million pounds, that's how much that one family cost us the tax payer in one year! Do you know how many empty bedrooms these people have?


They are pro-hunt too but produce cutie, wutie babies so exempt from criticism.


----------



## Lurcherlad

silvi said:


> There is a strong chance that the 3rd generation will also be on benefits, but not so much because their dependency is encouraged, but for the very reasons that saw their parents and grandparents out of work.
> 
> *It could well be that they live in a low-employment area (and cannot afford a bike to get on to get away from there...).
> It could be that they live in an area where education is poor, so it is harder to get the qualifications needed to search for a decent job.
> And yes, it could be that they have seen what has happened to previous generations and have given up hope.*
> 
> So, cutting the welfare system will not encourage these people to get off of benefits. It will simply make their lives harder.
> 
> What they need is hope, a better education, training for _real_ jobs (not just training to get them off of JSA for a few weeks) and a belief that things will be better in the future.
> And then they might just go out and try to improve their lives; because they will not be battling empty promises.


Or, it could be that they have the same opportunities as others to achieve and work hard, but they have modelled themselves on Waynetta Slob because they have seen it work so well for others around them - so why bother? It's those that everybody complains about, not those that are truly deserving of assistance. Not every claimant is like them, but there are far too many that are.

The system allows/encourages it - it needs to change so that does not happen. And we probably all agree that there are changes that need to happen to improve the system so that it DOES work for those that truly need it.


----------



## Changes

Satori said:


> They are pro-hunt too but produce cutie, wutie babies so exempt from criticism.


one more bl**dy mouth to feed! Clothe! House! Charter private transport! Privately Educate! Child Mind! Protection! Why do they keep breeding when they have no means of supporting themselves!

Thank god the rep button has gone lol xx


----------



## cheekyscrip

People voted for party that seemed to produce most stable economy


----------



## Pawscrossed

Changes said:


> Benefit scroungers...
> 
> It always makes me wonder why we have such a bad reaction to people claiming benefits as opposed to anyone else claiming from the system
> 
> I think it is because we have been conditioned that way
> 
> I am outraged that we pay for a family and all it's relatives and entourage, one family member spent £14k to go and watch the golf in a chartered plane. A day out at the golf for an annual salary, where is the justice in that, where are the out cries? One of the more prominent family members spent £246,160. on a chartered plane to go to a funeral. £35.7million pounds, that's how much that one family cost us the tax payer in one year! Do you know how many empty bedrooms these people have?
> 
> MP expenses cost us £103million that figure was for their expenses and was correct for 2014 - some MPs have been claiming for hotel expenses whilst renting out their London homes...
> 
> Some people that hate how much the unemployed cost us and don't even mention these people, interesting to me is why, probably because our flag waving brain washed brains tell us that this one family is really special and important to us historically and for tourism, no one will come to visit if we get rid of them so we should be happy to pay for them to live in luxury and the unemployed, well they are a blight on the landscapes of our communities and we have been conditioned to despise them.


I wish we still had the rep system. Good point well made.

I do agree that there are families who take the mickey but I'd rather there were benefits than see society regress Dickensian times. And honestly I think the Tories have a part to play in this, I'm old enough to remember the 'loadsa money' entitlement of the Thatcher years. Historically society was steamrollering into greed after years of genuine austerity with no idea of how to deal with credit and debt. At a purely educational level that needs addressing in schools and adult education not through cutbacks that serve to swell the requirement for food banks. For every family actually in need there maybe one who simply doesn't understand the 'value' of money. Then there's other issues like better understanding of the food chain, how to grow veg, stopped supermarkets robbing shoppers (an easy way to get into debt) and culling Black Friday.

Yes benefits needed a review after Labour but all the parties had a part to play in this situation and yeah, don't even get me started on the ruddy royal family...


----------



## Waterlily

Changes said:


> one more bl**dy mouth to feed! Clothe! House! Charter private transport! Privately Educate! Child Mind! Protection! Why do they keep breeding when they have no means of supporting themselves!
> 
> Thank god the rep button has gone lol xx


They shouldnt be paid for more than 2 kids if they spread the legs once on benefits.


----------



## shetlandlover

Goblin said:


> No it isn't. Simple reason. By doing that and encouraging it you are trapping generations on benefit with all the negatives that creates including self esteem of the people concerned. What's needed are programs to enhance job prospects or even community programs to actually make people feel valued and worthwhile and to get people out into the workplace where possible (and I don't mean pointless jobs). Tories are not doing the latter but throwing money at the problem and encouraging more people to rely on benefits isn't the solution either.
> 
> Let me ask a question.. If 2 generations of a family are on benefit.. what are the chances the 3th generation will also be? It's a rut people find hard to get out of. The welfare system is one that encourages dependency.


I agree with this post a lot.

My aunt (don't speak to her anymore because of this) has never worked a day in her life, ever. Has 6 kids which benefits supported. 
She's never had a house that wasn't completely benefit funded.
I remember my cousins asking me as kids what working was. My mother never held a job but my father works harder than anyone I know. 
The kids were all upset because they had to share clothes and bath water. They ate sandwiches for pretty much every meal.
But she had enough money to smoke, drink, eat fancy food for herself and have a computer with internet (which back then was a luxury in any household)

Anyway..back to the point.. my cousins are mostly adults now the oldest being 26. They are all over 16 apart from 1 who is 13. 
All of the over 16's don't work, have at least 1 kid each (some of them have 2) and are claiming benefits. 
If they are shown they can be rewarded for fiddling the system then they too will do it.


----------



## Bisbow

I wondered how long it would be before the Royal Family got dragged in.

Unemployed, I bet the Queen works a lot harder than you, she does me I would not ant her job for all her money.
Help and rescue helicopter pilot, just a hobby I suppose.
Fighting in Afghanistan, just wanted to pass the time away from a boring life I suppose

When are some of you going to value what this country has that the rest of the world envy

The election is over, live with it


----------



## Lurcherlad

Waterlily said:


> They shouldnt be paid for more than 2 kids if they spread the legs once on benefits.


Agree, totally!

Waynetta round the corner to me has Frogmella and Verucca already (as well as a council house) and I bet it won't be long before she produces another one. Her sister is mirroring her BTW


----------



## JANICE199

shetlandlover said:


> I agree with this post a lot.
> 
> My aunt (don't speak to her anymore because of this) has never worked a day in her life, ever. Has 6 kids which benefits supported.
> She's never had a house that wasn't completely benefit funded.
> I remember my cousins asking me as kids what working was. My mother never held a job but my father works harder than anyone I know.
> The kids were all upset because they had to share clothes and bath water. They ate sandwiches for pretty much every meal.
> But she had enough money to smoke, drink, eat fancy food for herself and have a computer with internet (which back then was a luxury in any household)
> 
> Anyway..back to the point.. my cousins are mostly adults now the oldest being 26. They are all over 16 apart from 1 who is 13.
> All of the over 16's don't work, have at least 1 kid each (some of them have 2) and are claiming benefits.
> If they are shown they can be rewarded for fiddling the system then they too will do it.


*If you know they are in fact fiddling the system, why don't you report them? No good moaning about them and doing nothing.*


----------



## shetlandlover

JANICE199 said:


> *If you know they are in fact fiddling the system, why don't you report them? No good moaning about them and doing nothing.*


I have multiple times. Hence why I don't speak with them.

Infact she got called in and told she'll repay £2 a month to pay back money that she didn't actually meet the requirements for...no punishment just £2 a month.


----------



## noushka05

cheekyscrip said:


> People voted for party that seemed to produce most stable economy


I know Cheeky  But two thirds of economists say tory austerity has harmed the economy - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html

And now even the great Paul Krugman has said austerity is a lie - http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion


----------



## Satori

Ang2 said:


> Aint if funny how some think benefits are a god damn give right - and those who pay for it, should not even have the audacity to have a say!


Thats what really bugs me, that culture of entitlement.

I was sad enough to to watch all the TV debates, including the regional ones. In one of them (Scottish iirc) a young woman - in her 20's, single mum, intelligent, articulate, never worked a day in her life - stood up and shouted at the Tory panellist (without a hint of irony)......

'Look, I'm not looking for handouts. I just want a decent home in a nice area close to good schools......" She had other things in her wish list too. A job wasn't anywhere on her list of demands. But, of course, she wasn't looking for 'handouts'. The fact that she wants them for free, sponged of the back of other people's sweat doesn't make them 'handouts'. Not a hint of gratitude. Wtf.

Her outburst was met with a warm round of applause by the assembled audience.


----------



## noushka05

On a lighter note, has anyone been following the spat on twitter between Charlotte Church & Katie Hopkins? lol I hate boxing, but I'd pay to see a charity boxing match between these two 

For those of you not on there -

*Katie Hopkins*‏@*KTHopkins*May 9
Oi! @*charlottechurch* wind your neck in. Your Welsh AND you lost. Own your problems http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/katiehopkins/6446559/Katie-Im-smug-and-Im-staying-in-Britain.html… pic.twitter.com/rFbA9XKQTl


ETWEETS*235*
FAVORITES*421*

*Charlotte ChurchVerified account*‏@*charlottechurch*
@*KTHopkins* I have no interest in ever conversing with you. You lack humility AND you can't spell. Parasite.


RETWEETS*4,922*
FAVORITES*8,447*



*eJay2201*22h22 hours ago
@*charlottechurch* @*KTHopkins* Uh oh, I see a charity boxing match


10:37 AM - 10 May 2015 · Details
'>
*Charlotte Church*‏@*charlottechurch*22h22 hours ago
@*TeeJay2201* I'd relish to opportunity to lawfully smash her face in. #*i*'dtrainhard #*likearockymontage* #*foreveryone*

1,072 retweets 2,299 favorites
*Charlotte ChurchVerified account*‏@*charlottechurch*
@*KTHopkins* Fancy a charity boxing match?


----------



## JANICE199

noushka05 said:


> On a lighter note, has anyone been following the spat on twitter between Charlotte Church & Katie Hopkins? lol I hate boxing, but I'd pay to see a charity boxing match between these two
> 
> For those of you not on there -
> 
> *Katie Hopkins*‏@*KTHopkins*May 9
> Oi! @*charlottechurch* wind your neck in. Your Welsh AND you lost. Own your problems http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/katiehopkins/6446559/Katie-Im-smug-and-Im-staying-in-Britain.html… pic.twitter.com/rFbA9XKQTl
> 
> 
> ETWEETS*235*
> FAVORITES*421*
> 
> *Charlotte ChurchVerified account*‏@*charlottechurch*
> @*KTHopkins* I have no interest in ever conversing with you. You lack humility AND you can't spell. Parasite.
> 
> 
> RETWEETS*4,922*
> FAVORITES*8,447*
> 
> 
> 
> *eJay2201*22h22 hours ago
> @*charlottechurch* @*KTHopkins* Uh oh, I see a charity boxing match
> 
> 
> 10:37 AM - 10 May 2015 · Details
> '>
> *Charlotte Church*‏@*charlottechurch*22h22 hours ago
> @*TeeJay2201* I'd relish to opportunity to lawfully smash her face in. #*i*'dtrainhard #*likearockymontage* #*foreveryone*
> 
> 1,072 retweets 2,299 favorites
> *Charlotte ChurchVerified account*‏@*charlottechurch*
> @*KTHopkins* Fancy a charity boxing match?


*I saw that, lol. Charlotte will win.*


----------



## noushka05

JANICE199 said:


> *I saw that, lol. Charlotte will win.*


That's who I'd put my money on


----------



## rona

smoking guns said:


> I
> 
> By your logic, you would be just as one sided as he may be. How many domestic torture victims who can't get the help to get away from their abusers have you come into contact with? How many deaf and partially-sighted people who have had their support cut to a barely liveable standard have you spoken to? Yes I won't deny that my partner may be seeing their side more but I still stand by my belief that I'd rather be in a society that helps these people than one that doesn't.
> 
> .


Not worked with any abuse victims as far as I'm aware. Been on the receiving end of mental abuse myself but I guess that doesn't count as I managed to cope and get out.

I've also worked alongside and helped a few with ASD, a guy with severe epilepsy, a guy with tourettes and also a deaf mute guy. Suppose none of those count though because they all worked alongside me and although helped by the state still earned themselves a living.


----------



## Muze

Like it or not, if you are British citizen, you ARE entitled to benefits if you are eligible.... isn't that something to be proud of, that people in our country don't (or didn't) have to resort to living in slums with no income whatsoever?

What is the problem with that? UK is still a wealthy country whatever the media will have you believe, they can afford to support those in need, if they wanted to. 

Nobody knows what is around the corner, you or a loved one could have an accident or a stroke, or have a disabled child..... would you then not claim the benefits you are ENTITLED to? To make a difficult time a little bit more bearable?


----------



## StormyThai

MCWillow said:


> Why should I _not_ be pissed off, that I work full time, and yet people that don't work at all are better off than me?


Tell you what...lets swap!

I'll take your full time job and your ability to be able to hold down said full time job and you can have my MS and all other related health issues, then add to that the stress that comes with wondering what is going to happen in the future when my mobility has disappeared for good...you can also have the daily judgement that I receive because I am lumped in with the "great unwashed" (because I choose to have a debilitating illness ya know)...

I would keep your full time job and secure lifestyle over this any day...Especially now that any funding I needed to retrain (due to my illness none of my previous qualifications are valid) to get my arse back into work is being cut!

General statement, not directed at anyone: This thread saddens me, so many selfish attitudes


----------



## Satori

Muze said:


> Nobody knows what is around the corner, you or a loved one could have an accident or a stroke, or have a disabled child..... would you then not claim the benefits you are ENTITLED to?


Not necessarily. I was made redundant in 2011 and could have claimed JSA for a year. I chose not to because I could manage fine without. If I ever were in a situation that I needed the money and was a entitled to benefits then, yes I would claim, BUT at least I would have the good grace to be grateful for the system that was feeding me. I wouldn't see it as my meal ticket for life.


----------



## bearcub

StormyThai said:


> Tell you what...lets swap!
> 
> I'll take your full time job and your ability to be able to hold down said full time job and you can have my MS and all other related health issues, then add to that the stress that comes with wondering what is going to happen in the future when my mobility has disappeared for good...you can also have the daily judgement that I receive because I am lumped in with the "great unwashed" (because I choose to have a debilitating illness ya know)...
> 
> I would keep your full time job and secure lifestyle over this any day...Especially now that any funding I needed to retrain (due to my illness none of my previous qualifications are valid) to get my arse back into work is being cut!
> 
> General statement, not directed at anyone: This thread saddens me, so many selfish attitudes


I don't think it's selfish to address concerns that relate to your own individual situation; after all I imagine the majority on this thread are struggling in one way or another to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table.

The fact that there are people worse off than ourselves doesn't alleviate our own day to day difficulties.


----------



## rona

StormyThai said:


> Tell you what...lets swap!
> 
> I would keep your full time job and secure lifestyle over this any day...Especially now that any funding I needed to retrain (due to my illness none of my previous qualifications are valid) to get my arse back into work is being cut!
> 
> General statement, not directed at anyone: This thread saddens me, so many selfish attitudes


Jobs aren't secure though are they?

I have two sisters who have claimed because of redundancy. I didn't when I was made redundant but then I can and do survive on half the minimum wage


----------



## rona

rona said:


> Not worked with any abuse victims as far as I'm aware. Been on the receiving end of mental abuse myself but I guess that doesn't count as I managed to cope and get out.
> 
> I've also worked alongside and helped a few with ASD, a guy with severe epilepsy, a guy with tourettes and also a deaf mute guy. Suppose none of those count though because they all worked alongside me and although helped by the state still earned themselves a living.


Forgot the drunk and the guy with throat cancer. These people didn't work because they had to but because they had a different mindset.

Writing all that down, never have before, I'm quite proud of myself, nearly all of them actually confided in me and seemed very happy to work with me. CHUFFED  

OMG just remembered the trans gender guy!!


----------



## cheekyscrip

noushka05 said:


> I know Cheeky  But two thirds of economists say tory austerity has harmed the economy - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html
> 
> And now even the great Paul Krugman has said austerity is a lie - http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion


Well..seeing Tories victory market went up nicely.

So much for Wall Street.
I never even said that Tories will be good choice..I think good for some things. Bad for others...I am worried about Euro vote, which Labour said not to and worried about NHS..
And foxes.
But it was legal election..now another election in different country surprised too. Good president and good man might be out.
This is democracy.
Want to be sure left extremists are in power..North Korea is a good choice..
Their health care, animal welfare education must be paradise..

I am soft leftie and so is OH.
But even us were repelled by Red Ed dealings with his brother..this where things might have gone different for this election and you cannot blame anyone Labour inner politics for that.

Labour dug their own grave and put a tombstone on it.

Now they go shouting Tories out!
I promise here officially if you Noush will be a candidate and I am allowed to vote ..then I will!..
Or eat my underwear.


----------



## smoking guns

So... From what I gather, a lot of you would make it more difficult for people _in general_ to get benefits because you begrudge that _some_ benefits recipients (scroungers or not) because they are able to enjoy their life a little bit more than you. I have been on a £14,500 annual salary and I know how difficult it can be, especially as I live in London and was doing so on that low salary. I am very unlikely to be able to buy rather than rent within the next 10 years. I have never claimed benefits of any kind. Yes, the system right now is unfair, but I still believe that we should, as a society, be supporting the needy (who are the majority of claimants) rather than cutting benefits all round just to stop a handful of people (because in the grand scheme of things, it _is_ just a handful) who are abusing the system.

I would rather not condemn a man with such severe PTSD that he has flashbacks every time there is a relatively loud noise (including a lorry driving past or a car horn or even someone suddenly shouting in the street), so he is effectively housebound, to living on the streets because as he is physically able, assessors claim he is able to work. I would rather not force a woman who has been kidnapped and sold into prostitution, to be sent back to her brothel because she has no physical marks of abuse on her body, rather than being given a second chance to start again.

However I am not saying a Labour government would necessarily have fixed what is clearly a broken system. I agree and understand all of you who are debating against my points in that Labour was not necessarily the answer. In my opinion I thought Labour was the better option, but the problem is that any party the country votes in needs to have the right interests rather than a "simple fix" like making it very difficult to claim benefits. I think politicians are very out of touch with this sort of thing in general.


----------



## shetlandlover

It isn't a fair system when you work very hard and are still earning less than those who decide to be on benefits and breed like rabbits. 

I don't class people with genuine health issues as anything other than unfortunate and they deserve whatever money they need to survive. 

HOWEVER a lot of people on benefits are on it because they don't want to work. These are the people that deserve to have their benefits slashed. 

There's a massive difference between being too sick to work and being too lazy.


----------



## Goblin

StormyThai said:


> I would keep your full time job and secure lifestyle over this any day...Especially now that any funding I needed to retrain (due to my illness none of my previous qualifications are valid) to get my arse back into work is being cut!


Used to be job for life. How many people now have that? Life is now full of uncertainty.



> General statement, not directed at anyone: This thread saddens me, so many selfish attitudes


Which as a statement means either agree with me or you are selfish. Comments like that force people to take hard opposing sides based on their personal experiences and the simple fact is, most know people abusing the welfare system. Has anyone on this thread said benefits should not exist. Has anyone stated that the tories have it right? Was that the only policy of the tories?


----------



## Goblin

shetlandlover said:


> HOWEVER a lot of people on benefits are on it because they don't want to work.


Or the fact the culture they have grown up in is one where they have no hope and benefits are the standard way of life, not the exception. They are trapped into benefits as any job available means a cut in the money they receive. Isn't it also selfish, as that word keeps being banded around, to actually want and encourage people to be trapped like that?


----------



## Guest

I wonder what the actual cost to taxpayers is of those abusing the welfare system. I know it seems like a lot of people are abusing the system, but I wonder what the actual numbers are and what the actual cost is.

And then I’d like to see that number compared to the cost of big corporations evading taxes, or even the tax cuts of big corporations. I wonder what those numbers might look like.

As far as I can tell, the money is there. The prosperity is there. A fair distribution of the profits and prosperity is not there. Of course you say stuff like that and get branded a communist. Oh well...


----------



## rona

smoking guns said:


> So... From what I gather, a lot of you would make it more difficult for people _in general_ to get benefits because you begrudge that _some_ benefits recipients (scroungers or not) because they are able to enjoy their life a little bit more than you. I have been on a £14,500 annual salary and I know how difficult it can be, especially as I live in London and was doing so on that low salary. I am very unlikely to be able to buy rather than rent within the next 10 years. I have never claimed benefits of any kind. Yes, the system right now is unfair, but I still believe that we should, as a society, be supporting the needy (who are the majority of claimants) rather than cutting benefits all round just to stop a handful of people (because in the grand scheme of things, it _is_ just a handful) who are abusing the system.
> 
> I would rather not condemn a man with such severe PTSD that he has flashbacks every time there is a relatively loud noise (including a lorry driving past or a car horn or even someone suddenly shouting in the street), so he is effectively housebound, to living on the streets because as he is physically able, assessors claim he is able to work. I would rather not force a woman who has been kidnapped and sold into prostitution, to be sent back to her brothel because she has no physical marks of abuse on her body, rather than being given a second chance to start again.
> 
> However I am not saying a Labour government would necessarily have fixed what is clearly a broken system. I agree and understand all of you who are debating against my points in that Labour was not necessarily the answer. In my opinion I thought Labour was the better option, but the problem is that any party the country votes in needs to have the right interests rather than a "simple fix" like making it very difficult to claim benefits. I think politicians are very out of touch with this sort of thing in general.


No, what I personally am saying is to get proper assessors not some firm that has no idea about the person they are assessing. The best person to start with is their doctor or specialists or the medical notes from them

That's the whole problem stems from this really. How on earth can anyone think it right that someone with huge social issues or severely disabled be forced out of their house to be assessed!!


----------



## Goblin

ouesi said:


> And then I'd like to see that number compared to the cost of big corporations evading taxes, or even the tax cuts of big corporations. I wonder what those numbers might look like.


Yet the tories are the ones who are closing tax loopholes, not labour. All labour did was encourage 2/3rds of the millionaires out of the country by raising taxes which lost the country 7 billion. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/charlotte-church-hmrc-keeps-investigating-me-my-missing-millions-1456052 as previously linked is quite amusing considering.


----------



## shetlandlover

Bob and Sarah work hard and have worked all their lives, a % of their hard earned cash pays for Carl and Jane's lifestyle (who are on benefits and have never worked), Carl and Jane have 3 children who never work because they never learnt work ethic... Bob and Sarah's children are hard workers and % of their pay pays for Carl and Janes 3 kids as adults. 

And so it continues. 

As for A fair distribution of the profits and prosperity....why should someone who works hard get the same or less than someone who chooses not to work?


----------



## Goblin

shetlandlover said:


> Bob and Sarah work hard and have worked all their lives, a % of their hard earned cash


Don't forget Bob and Sarah can't afford to have children.


----------



## shetlandlover

Goblin said:


> Don't forget Bob and Sarah can't afford to have children.


True with % of their money goes to fund someone elses children that would make it even more difficult for hard working Bob and Sarah to afford a family of their own.


----------



## soulful dog

So much of this thread is about benefits, and yet we all probably agree on the basics; that those people who are abusing the system and getting a lot of benefits are in the wrong (whether its people who have as many kids as they want and never work, or people simply cheating the system by claiming for benefits they are not entitled to). And it is also wrong that people who are genuinely in need of benefits are being made to jump through hoops to keep their benefits or limit the cuts to them.

The differences are in how you combat that. I personally don't think making more cuts, forcing people into work that doesn't necessarily suit them, making claiming benefits a grind that wears people down, and as the Tories are doing very well (as shown by a lot of the posts in this thread) practically making it a 'them v us' issue, is any kind of solution. How to fix it is clearly very difficult, and I doubt any one party has the answers. Encouraging people to be more independent, making working life beneficial for as many as possible or demonising a whole swathe of our society by targeting them and labelling them - one is far easier to do than the other, but what do you think will work better?

And while the welfare state is so very costly to the country because of the sheer numbers of people, I often wonder, just how much per head is unfairly taken by benefit cheats compared to how much money is unfairly taken by government or local authority employees on expenses, or other job perks, or how much tax people avoid paying, etc.

Edited to add: and while Goblin is spot on that the Tories have for example tried to close some tax loopholes. What often happens in the companies/people move to avoid it (by moving their HQ's or claiming they reside in another country for so much of the year), or employ accountants to hide the money better, and that is the huge difference. How much leeway in comparison does someone on benefits have when their 'loophole' is closed, how much is their life impacted compared to the person who already has so much money in the bank anyway?


----------



## JANICE199

ouesi said:


> I wonder what the actual cost to taxpayers is of those abusing the welfare system. I know it seems like a lot of people are abusing the system, but I wonder what the actual numbers are and what the actual cost is.
> 
> And then I'd like to see that number compared to the cost of big corporations evading taxes, or even the tax cuts of big corporations. I wonder what those numbers might look like.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the money is there. The prosperity is there. A fair distribution of the profits and prosperity is not there. Of course you say stuff like that and get branded a communist. Oh well...


*We also don't hear about the billions of benefits that are sitting unclaimed.*


----------



## Goblin

soulful dog said:


> The differences are in how you combat that. I personally don't think making more cuts, forcing people into work that doesn't necessarily suit them, making claiming benefits a grind that wears people down, and as the Tories are doing very well (as shown by a lot of the posts in this thread) practically making it a 'them v us' issue, is any kind of solution. How to fix it is clearly very difficult, and I doubt any one party has the answers. Encouraging people to be more independent, making working life beneficial for as many as possible or demonising a whole swathe of our society by targeting them and labelling them - one is far easier to do than the other, but what do you think will work better?


So getting the rich to pay more whilst ensuring the "middle" actually get more doesn't encourage people to be more independent or make working life more beneficial?

You accuse the Tories of drawing the lines yet, in this thread, it's the opposite. Anyone who doesn't agree with labour 100% are selfish or uncaring.


----------



## smoking guns

rona said:


> No, what I personally am saying is to get proper assessors not some firm that has no idea about the person they are assessing. The best person to start with is their doctor or specialists or the medical notes from them
> 
> That's the whole problem stems from this really. How on earth can anyone think it right that someone with huge social issues or severely disabled be forced out of their house to be assessed!!


Oh yes I definitely completely agree. Right now the problem is the assessing being outsourced (although the main firm's contract has already been cancelled due to how terrible at their jobs they have been, I believe) to people who are doing it from far away and are fabricating things to be able to say "no, I saw him put his jacket on therefore he is not disabled enough" (which in itself is an awful thing to say), when in fact the claimant did not wear a jacket. The housing benefits charity my partner volunteered at specifically helped people like this, sending their own to go and make sure the assessors are not rooting out people who cannot cope without the benefits, but the organisation is a small one so there are still plenty of people being denied for the silliest of reasons, or worse, because of complete and utter lies.


----------



## StormyThai

Goblin said:


> Used to be job for life. How many people now have that? Life is now full of uncertainty.
> 
> Which as a statement means either agree with me or you are selfish. Comments like that force people to take hard opposing sides based on their personal experiences and the simple fact is, most know people abusing the welfare system. Has anyone on this thread said benefits should not exist. Has anyone stated that the tories have it right? Was that the only policy of the tories?


I never said jobs were secure, nor did I mean what you are implying with my last statement. 
If that is what you want to take from my post then -shrugs-


----------



## cheekyscrip

For those who want PR system
This means if you have seven or so main players (Lab,Tories,SNP,Ukip, Green,Welsh, Irish.) you may end up with very weird unstable combos and in coalition fights forever...I like British system better..
Plus obscure parties in pivotal role taking ministerial posts!..like that pig farmer we had and who went to.have talks with EU!..scenes like from Baron Cohen!


----------



## soulful dog

Goblin said:


> So getting the rich to pay more whilst ensuring the "middle" actually get more doesn't encourage people to be more independent or make working life more beneficial?
> 
> You accuse the Tories of drawing the lines yet, in this thread, it's the opposite. Anyone who doesn't agree with labour 100% are selfish or uncaring.


In theory that is fine, but the problem is, many of the people who need to see there is a better option are, for the most part, nowhere near the "middle" and can't even see any way of ever being able to get there. It is not an attainable goal for many, and when the figures show that the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider, it just makes it look even further away.


----------



## silvi

Bisbow said:


> I wondered how long it would be before the Royal Family got dragged in.
> 
> Unemployed, I bet the Queen works a lot harder than you, she does me I would not ant her job for all her money.
> Help and rescue helicopter pilot, just a hobby I suppose.
> Fighting in Afghanistan, just wanted to pass the time away from a boring life I suppose


The Queen probably does work hard, but she also has all the means to do so: the best health care; the best housing; the best breaks when she needs them......
I'm not going to knock members of the royal family who fight as part of the British armed forces, but they have been fighting alongside other recruits who do not have the same life opportunities as them and, for those who are injured or laid off when no longer needed, life under a Tory government is extremely hard. It is not surprising that many ex members of the armed forces did not want a Tory win.



Bisbow said:


> When are some of you going to value what this country has that the rest of the world envy


If by that you mean the Royal Family, I'm not so sure at all that people from other countries envy us. It's more that they find the whole situation rather quaint and good to look at on their visits. Or perhaps they follow our Royal family's 'exploits' in the likes of OK mag.



Bisbow said:


> The election is over, live with it


The sad fact is though, that many people will be unable to live with it.


----------



## Goblin

soulful dog said:


> In theory that is fine, but the problem is, many of the people who need to see there is a better option are, for the most part, nowhere near the "middle" and can't even see any way of ever being able to get there. It is not an attainable goal for many, and when the figures show that the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider, it just makes it look even further away.


Yet that middle is anyone who has a job who isn't on the highest tax band and is paying into the system. Labour supporters of course never point out the facts (same as tories) when it doesn't strengthen their argument.

As for PR, wasn't around in 2011 but apparently the UK voters rejected it. It's a system which works for many countries including Germany. Devil is in the details and with PR, voters will vote differently.


----------



## Goblin

smoking guns said:


> Oh yes I definitely completely agree. Right now the problem is the assessing being outsourced


I don't agree. I think the problem is deeper and that is "targets", possibly with bonuses for achievements. Same as the NHS, education etc. People are not something you can apply targets to as though we were all the same.


----------



## silvi

Lurcherlad said:


> Or, it could be that they have the same opportunities as others to achieve and work hard, but they have modelled themselves on Waynetta Slob because they have seen it work so well for others around them - so why bother? It's those that everybody complains about, not those that are truly deserving of assistance. Not every claimant is like them, but there are far too many that are.
> 
> The system allows/encourages it - it needs to change so that does not happen. And we probably all agree that there are changes that need to happen to improve the system so that it DOES work for those that truly need it.


I think that most of us would agree that the system needs to change, but....

I fear that this belief will be used as an excuse to hit the poor even more.

And... If we are to get more people into work and off of benefits and defeat generational unemployment, we need to have something to offer.
We need to invest in young peoples' education and qualifications for work, and I mean _really_ invest, not just offer them apprenticeships with no hope of work at the end, or short courses that give them no real qualifications and experience.

But of course what is also often omitted from these arguments (and seems to have been sidelined here) is that the bulk of benefits are given to people who are already working. So what can be offered to them, apart from a higher wage?

If there were real jobs available: jobs with security and decent wages for hard work and experience, people would be encouraged to go out and apply for them, because they would see the advantages in doing so.
Very few would want to be unemployed and bored while their mates were working and earning money to go out and to do things with their lives.

But at the moment, in many communities, this just isn't an option.
And this Tory government, with its focus on austerity rather than investment, will not be able to come up with the goods.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> And this Tory government, with its focus on austerity rather than investment, will not be able to come up with the goods.


Tory government = governmental austerity whilst encouraging investment in terms of business etc which in turn provides jobs. Not penalize people simply for doing well and creating opportunities for others.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Tory government = governmental austerity whilst encouraging investment in terms of business etc which in turn provides jobs. Not penalize people simply for doing well and creating opportunities for others.


Well, that's the ideology anyway.....
The truth is that recent business encouragement has indeed created jobs, but (and despite Tory claims otherwise) these are more likely to be temporary jobs on zero hours contracts. Because those are the types of jobs likely to appeal to start-up businesses.


----------



## Goblin

Yet the principle of zero hour contracts have been around for decades and they make sense. It's firms that subvert labour laws by using zero hours contracts to avoid providing holiday, sick pay and other worker rights that need to be brought up short and penalized. A 2013 study by the CIPD found that 47% of workers on zero hour contracts were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their deal, with 72% believing they had choice over the hours they worked. Once again not simply a black and white issue as people make it out to be but one where abuse needs to be stamped out. How many people working a standard 37.5hr week according to contract with no overtime possible find themselves working longer to get the job done?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

So even Lord Sugar has resigned from the labour party because he considers them to have negative business policies and anti enterprise concepts.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-resigns-from-labour-party-over-shift-to-left

I don't find anything much here for people to be getting so worked up about either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32683869


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Yet the principle of zero hour contracts have been around for decades. It's firms that subvert labour laws by using zero hours contracts to avoid providing holiday, sick pay and other worker rights that need to be brought up short and penalized. A 2013 study by the CIPD found that 47% of workers on zero hour contracts were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their deal, with 72% believing they had choice over the hours they worked. Once again not simply a black and white issue as people make it out to be but one where abuse needs to be stamped out. How many people working a standard 37.5hr week according to contract with no overtime possible find themselves working longer to get the job done?


Yes, the principles behind zero hours contracts have been about for a long time. For example, firms who employed workers on the 3 month 'probationary' period, only to sack them for unsubstantiated reasons the day before their probationary period was up (and before anyone says that these people probably deserved it, this happened to my mum and she was always a hard worker and an intelligent, intuitive worker, but she, along with others taken on at the same time, was sacked for a made-up reason under these laws. The problem was made worse because they then found it difficult to get JSA whilst looking for new work, because the reason given for the sacking was viewed as 'industrial misconduct' - Mum still feels so angry and cheated about it to this day).

And yes, many firms now subvert labour laws with zero hours contracts. I've worked for some of them when I was made redundant from my teaching work.

As to the 2013 study, I would like to see the questions asked before assessing how accurate they are. For example, people may well be satisfied with their choice of hours to work, but not so satisfied when they can't get a mortgage or even a rental contract, because their job is classed as 'insecure'.

And that's the real problem with zero hours contracts - they provide zero security.

I know that it is only fair that employers have the right to sack workers who are not doing their jobs properly (after making sure they have received all the training necessary of course....), but the complete insecurity of zero hours contract work is leaving millions of families totally unsure about next week, leave alone the future.

And it is also leaving them completely uncreditworthy which (rightly or wrongly) is causing them problems with housing, insurance, and in other essential areas.


----------



## Mulish

silvi said:


> I think that most of us would agree that the system needs to change, but....
> 
> I fear that this belief will be used as an excuse to hit the poor even more.
> 
> And... If we are to get more people into work and off of benefits and defeat generational unemployment, we need to have something to offer.
> We need to invest in young peoples' education and qualifications for work, and I mean _really_ invest, not just offer them apprenticeships with no hope of work at the end, or short courses that give them no real qualifications and experience.
> 
> But of course what is also often omitted from these arguments (and seems to have been sidelined here) is that the bulk of benefits are given to people who are already working. So what can be offered to them, apart from a higher wage?
> 
> If there were real jobs available: jobs with security and decent wages for hard work and experience, people would be encouraged to go out and apply for them, because they would see the advantages in doing so.
> Very few would want to be unemployed and bored while their mates were working and earning money to go out and to do things with their lives.
> 
> But at the moment, in many communities, this just isn't an option.
> And this Tory government, with its focus on austerity rather than investment, will not be able to come up with the goods.


I agree.

Maybe it's simplistic but I believe that if minimum wage was raised more people would be able to come off of benefits. They'd have jobs that provided disposable income which they would want to spend, leading to more jobs and more people able to come off of benefits. Reward people for working, rather than penalising them for not (positive reinforcement! )

The welfare state is meant to be there as a safety net for people in need, it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice and it shouldn't be denied to the genuine because they used the wrong phrase in their multi-page, overly complex forms. It definitely shouldn't have to prop up the funds of working people who are simply not being paid enough to get by otherwise. That's not a failing of the people using it, though, it's a failing of the system as a whole.

I hate all of this "them and us" crap when there should really only be "us."


----------



## rona

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't find anything much here for people to be getting so worked up about either.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32683869


While I like nearly everything that they say they will be doing, I'm very concerned about the lack of any reference to the environment. It's like the air we breathe isn't important as long as we have money


----------



## Mulish

rona said:


> While I like nearly everything that they say they will be doing, I'm very concerned about the lack of any reference to the environment. It's like the air we breathe isn't important as long as we have money


Reminds me of this:
http://sayingimages.com/trees-gave-wifi-signals-planting-many-trees/


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> Yes, the principles behind zero hours contracts have been about for a long time. For example, firms who employed workers on the 3 month 'probationary' period, only to sack them for unsubstantiated reasons the day before their probationary period was up


This isn't an issue of zero hour contracts, it's always been a threat and abuse by a minority of companies.



> And that's the real problem with zero hours contracts - they provide zero security.


Which again comes back to the issue of abuse and status. Zero hour contracts have no legal standing. What is better a firm needs to cut it's man hours to keep people employed or to let people go as that is the only other option?

You may have poor experience with companies but most are run by responsible human beings who care about their workforce. Why penalise them for the actions of the minority.. wait where have I heard that before 

Didn't Blair say he was going to ban zero hour contracts in 1995? How many people are currently employed by labour under zero hour contracts?

So much of these issues boil down to a simple fact. Money and the desire to have it.


----------



## MoggyBaby

Mulish said:


> I agree.
> 
> Maybe it's simplistic but I believe that if minimum wage was raised more people would be able to come off of benefits. They'd have jobs that provided disposable income which they would want to spend, leading to more jobs and more people able to come off of benefits. Reward people for working, rather than penalising them for not (positive reinforcement! )
> 
> The welfare state is meant to be there as a safety net for people in need, it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice and it shouldn't be denied to the genuine because they used the wrong phrase in their multi-page, overly complex forms. It definitely shouldn't have to prop up the funds of working people who are simply not being paid enough to get by otherwise. That's not a failing of the people using it, though, it's a failing of the system as a whole.
> 
> I hate all of this "them and us" crap when there should really only be "us."


Oh I DO miss the rep system coz this ^^^^ is more than worthy of one!

I totally agree with you. If minimum wage needs to be topped up by tax credits, then it clearly is not enough.

Many businesses though, are very short-sighted on this issue. They just see their wage bills increase and their profit margins falling. They don't see that by having more money in their pockets, people will spend more money which - as you say - creates more jobs, increases profit margins as the demand for goods increases and so on.

Not so long ago, the minimum wage was raised in (I believe) Australia from about $12.50AUS to approx $17.00AUS an hour. Many businesses dug their heels in over it right up until it was implemented. They foretold all sorts of doom & gloom. Guess what..... they are still waiting for the doom & gloom to happen. Their economic market is tender at the moment but this is due to outside resources etc and not the wage increase. There must be some truth in the 'More Pay = More Jobs' as their unemployment rate is continuing to fall.


----------



## Guest

shetlandlover said:


> As for A fair distribution of the profits and prosperity....why should someone who works hard get the same or less than someone who chooses not to work?


I don't know the answer to your question. 
I guess my argument is, if we're going to cry "no fair" we need to look in all directions, not just down.

When I was pregnant, one of the twins had a rare condition that caused me to be hospitalized with twice daily ultrasounds to basically check that the fetus was still alive. 
One day in the waiting room (waiting for my ultrasound) another pregnant woman was wheeled in. Her fetus had the same condition. In my case it was a rare complication of a twin pregnancy (and see even here, I feel compelled to clarify that my twin pregnancy was a total fluke and not the result of fertility treatments). In this other woman's case, the same condition was a not so rare complication of heroin use during pregnancy. She was also in shackles and wearing orange prison garb. This woman was in prison for a felony and she was being escorted every day, twice a day to the ultrasound facility at the regional hospital. I'm pretty sure she did not pay one single hospital bill ever. Meanwhile OH and I spent 4 years paying off our medical bills. And we have "good" insurance.

I definitely felt a twinge of "no fair" on many occasions as we were struggling to pay off our medical debt.
I felt plenty of "no fair" twinges at the fact that I had taken every precaution with my pregnancy, had every test done before even attempting to get pregnant to make sure I was healthy, ate well, took care of myself, and still ended up with complications while women everywhere get accidentally pregnant and have totally uncomplicated, uneventful pregnancies and birth.

Like my childhood friend who was pregnant around the same time. She married in to trust fund wealth, has never worked a day, has a cook, a nanny, a housekeeper, gardener, and her children will have all sorts of privileges that mine will never even dream of. Is it fair that her kids will never know financial worry, that they won't have to go to daycare before a preemie should because their parents could afford to not work? Is it fair that I work harder than she ever will yet she enjoys a financial freedom that I will never have?

I can play the "no fair" hand however I like to. But this was a good decade ago, and I've grown up and I realize that it really does all even out in the wash. I have it better financially than some, I have it worse than some. 
I enjoy good health and physical ability that others through no fault of their own do not. 
My kids have great opportunities because I'm educated and resourceful and I have contacts that other don't. 
My kids have fewer opportunities because their parents just don't have the financial wherewithal to offer them certain opportunities.

I don't know what's fair, but I do know that the surest way to discontent is to start making those comparisons with others. No matter what, there will always be those better off, and those less well off, and it's not our job to judge why they're there, but to help each other as fellow humans. 
We try to just live our life, do our thing, and help out where we can, and if that means some people will take advantage, then it also means some people will avail themselves of those resources to climb out of poverty, and eventually give back. 
I don't know what the answer is, but I sure do know that fighting amongst ourselves and laying blame never solved anything.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> This isn't an issue of zero hour contracts, it's always been a threat and abuse by a minority of companies.


Agreed, but it is part of the principal behind zero hours contracts - that you can employ people and then discard them at very short notice.



Goblin said:


> Which again comes back to the issue of abuse and status. Zero hour contracts have no legal standing. What is better a firm needs to cut it's man hours to keep people employed or to let people go as that is the only other option?


Neither is a good option for _those employed_ at the company.
But at least if that company employs workers on a secure basis, the workers will then receive redundancy payments.



Goblin said:


> You may have poor experience with companies but most are run by responsible human beings who care about their workforce. Why penalise them for the actions of the minority.. wait where have I heard that before


Yes, I see the irony 
But I would say that I have had bad experiences of this because I live in a city where unemployment is above the national average and there are many, quite large, employers now using zero contract hours to employ their staff.
If this is the case in other areas of higher unemployment (which I think it may well be), then it further penalises those who live in those areas.....and takes us back to the point that in certain areas it is almost impossible for people to come off of benefits.

Because the 'gotcha' is that when a worker is on zero contract hours, it is very difficult for them to get the top-up benefits they need, because the assessor has no definite figures to work on - hence many claimants feeling that they would be better off not working for these employers.



Goblin said:


> Didn't Blair say he was going to ban zero hour contracts in 1995? How many people are currently employed by labour under zero hour contracts?


I don't honestly know whether he said that or not. But Blair's form of labour politics was one I didn't entirely agree with anyway.



Goblin said:


> So much of these issues boil down to a simple fact. Money and the desire to have it.


Or, money and the _need_ to have some of it.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> Or, money and the _need_ to have some of it.


No, it's the desire to have it which is poisoning society 

I'll just say one more thing in this thread.

We can all say how things can be improved and how X party does or doesn't do Y. Doesn't matter now, the tories have been elected. We now have the choice, accept a democratically elected party or push for mob rule. If we agree with democracy the next step is how we can influence and push for changes which are needed within the democratic framework.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> No, it's the desire to have it which is poisoning society
> 
> I'll just say one more thing in this thread.
> 
> We can all say how things can be improved and how X party does or doesn't do Y. Doesn't matter now, the tories have been elected. We now have the choice, accept a democratically elected party or push for mob rule. If we agree with democracy the next step is how we can influence and push for changes which are needed within the democratic framework.


I hope to be able to agree with the democratic choice.
But I'll wait a while to see how things go and what changes are made to our democratic rights before I agree with you wholeheartedly


----------



## MCWillow

StormyThai said:


> Tell you what...lets swap!
> 
> I'll take your full time job and your ability to be able to hold down said full time job and you can have my MS and all other related health issues, then add to that the stress that comes with wondering what is going to happen in the future when my mobility has disappeared for good...you can also have the daily judgement that I receive because I am lumped in with the "great unwashed" (because I choose to have a debilitating illness ya know)...
> 
> I would keep your full time job and secure lifestyle over this any day...Especially now that any funding I needed to retrain (due to my illness none of my previous qualifications are valid) to get my arse back into work is being cut!
> 
> General statement, not directed at anyone: This thread saddens me, so many selfish attitudes


OK let me clarify.

I meant people that _don't_ work, but _could _work if they could be arsed to.

I certainly didn't mean people that _can't_ work.


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> And now even the great Paul Krugman has said austerity is a lie - http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion


I think he always did. Anyway, that's a great article. Thanks for the link.


----------



## patsymatsy

Precisely, this is how I view Tory voters...."'Voting Conservative appeals to self-interest rather than communal interest, so some of its supporters feel ashamed to admit it. Imagine if you gathered a hundred people in a room and told them they could vote for everyone to be given £50 each, or for them to be given a thousand pounds personally but everyone else gets nothing. In public most people would probably vote for sharing, but in a secret ballot some would put a sneaky cross in a box for swiping the lot. In part that's what happened on Thursday - except no one will ever be given the £1,000."


----------



## Satori

patsymatsy said:


> View attachment 230633
> 
> 
> Precisely, this is how I view Tory voters.... "


Guess that just demonstrates your naïveté then.


----------



## Colliebarmy

Cameron = Short term pain/Long term gain

Salmond = the other way round


----------



## Satori

Colliebarmy said:


> Cameron = Short term pain/Long term gain
> 
> Salmond = the other way round


Exactly. And let's not forget that the guy on the left was using some else's money, which makes it a bit easier to be generous.


----------



## patsymatsy

Satori said:


> Guess that just demonstrates your naïveté then.


Not at all, quite the opposite actually. Your denial of the facts reveals your naivety....


----------



## Satori

patsymatsy said:


> Not at all, quite the opposite actually. Your denial of the facts reveals your naivety....


Btw, I'll take the thousand pounds please. You'd just fritter your fifty away. Much safe in my hands


----------



## patsymatsy

Satori said:


> Exactly. And let's not forget that the guy on the left was using some else's money, which makes it a bit easier to be generous.


Ha ha now you are showing your lack of knowledge... The "free stuff" is funded from the Scottish budget.

Remind me which of us is the ill informed and naive?? :Facepalm


----------



## Satori

patsymatsy said:


> Ha ha now you are showing you lack of knowledge... The "free stuff" is funded from the Scottish budget.
> 
> Remind me which of us is the ill informed and naive?? :Facepalm


I guess you have never heard of the Barnett formula then?


----------



## patsymatsy

Colliebarmy said:


> Cameron = Short term pain/Long term gain
> 
> Salmond = the other way round


Are you serious?

The rich have just doubled their wealth, the poor have got poorer.

And guess, what the deficit has got BIGGER and government borrowing increased in the last 5 years.

Wow, Mr Cameron has you all brain washed!


----------



## patsymatsy

Satori said:


> I guess you have never heard of the Barnett formula then?


I guess you are not aware that us 5 million Scots PAY more tax per head than the English. The Barnett formula still doesn't give us back anywhere near what we pay in.

England doesn't want to let us go, because they NEED our tax and revenue. Scotland actually subsidises (sp) England! But guess what, we are breaking free.... SOON!

Bairns not bombs.....

Scotland has a social conscious....


----------



## patsymatsy

[


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

StormyThai said:


> Tell you what...lets swap!
> 
> I'll take your full time job and your ability to be able to hold down said full time job and you can have my MS and all other related health issues, then add to that the stress that comes with wondering what is going to happen in the future when my mobility has disappeared for good...you can also have the daily judgement that I receive because I am lumped in with the "great unwashed" (because I choose to have a debilitating illness ya know)...
> 
> I would keep your full time job and secure lifestyle over this any day...Especially now that any funding I needed to retrain (due to my illness none of my previous qualifications are valid) to get my arse back into work is being cut!
> 
> General statement, not directed at anyone: This thread saddens me, so many selfish attitudes


I read MCWillow's post as being directed at people inappropriately claiming JSA, StormyThai. I'm sorry things suck for you atm.  xxxx



patsymatsy said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> The rich have just doubled their wealth, the poor have got poorer.
> 
> And guess, what the deficit has got BIGGER and government borrowing increased in the last 5 years.
> 
> Wow, Mr Cameron has you all brain washed!


What of the large proportion of us who are neither rich nor poor?


----------



## patsymatsy

Shoshannah said:


> I read MCWillow's post as being directed at people inappropriately claiming JSA, StormyThai. I'm sorry things suck for you atm.  xxxx
> 
> What of the large proportion of us who are neither rich nor poor?


I was talking about the top 1% when referring to the "rich".

Do the middle class not have a social conscious?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

patsymatsy said:


> I was talking about the top 1% when referring to the "rich".
> 
> Do the middle class not have a social conscious?


Not if you believe the cliches.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

patsymatsy said:


> I was talking about the top 1% when referring to the "rich".
> 
> Do the middle class not have a social conscious?


Do you? do you voluntarily give a share of your wages every month to the homeless or food banks? do you own your own home? if so when you sell it will you be donating the equity/rise in value to fund all these wonderful ideas? If I won the lottery I could be very benevolent and come up with no end of good causes to support and enjoy planning how to spend my winnings but as I live in the real world I have to stick to a budget and work out what is coming in and what is going out then spend the rest appropriately.

By the way your name isn't Belinda is it?


----------



## Colliebarmy

patsymatsy said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> The rich have just doubled their wealth, the poor have got poorer.
> 
> And guess, what the deficit has got BIGGER and government borrowing increased in the last 5 years.
> 
> Wow, Mr Cameron has you all brain washed!


Labour has ALWAYS been spend, spend, spend, even if it's borrowed money (or especially when it is) Between the Labour socialists and Labour communists the country suffered, but dont worry, the UK electorate has a poor memory, in 5 years Labour will get back in and it can all start again


----------



## Satori

patsymatsy said:


> And guess, what the deficit has got BIGGER and government borrowing increased in the last 5 years.


[email protected]


----------



## Satori

patsymatsy said:


> I guess you are not aware that us 5 million Scots PAY more tax per head than the English. The Barnett formula still doesn't give us back anywhere near what we pay in.


Actually you pay about £400 per head more tax and receive £1300 per head more through the Barnett formula.


----------



## Rafa

patsymatsy said:


> I guess you are not aware that us 5 million Scots PAY more tax per head than the English. The Barnett formula still doesn't give us back anywhere near what we pay in.
> 
> England doesn't want to let us go, because they NEED our tax and revenue. Scotland actually subsidises (sp) England! But guess what, we are breaking free.... SOON!
> 
> Bairns not bombs.....
> 
> Scotland has a social conscious....


Didn't Scotland vote NOT to break free last year?

I don't think Scotland are subsidising England.

As for England not wanting to let Scotland go, Scotland had every chance to go last year and chose not to.


----------



## Satori

patsymatsy said:


> [


One of your better contributions.


----------



## patsymatsy

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do you? do you voluntarily give a share of your wages every month to the homeless or food banks? do you own your own home? if so when you sell it will you be donating the equity/rise in value to fund all these wonderful ideas? If I won the lottery I could be very benevolent and come up with no end of good causes to support and enjoy planning how to spend my winnings but as I live in the real world I have to stick to a budget and work out what is coming in and what is going out then spend the rest appropriately.
> 
> By the way your name isn't Belinda is it?


I do give to food banks regularly, it is something we do par for the course up here. I love the fact I live in Scotland where we still want to look after each other, rather than the dog eat dog uncaring situation that has arisen in England. There are a lot of people in England that look towards us in envy, and as an example of how things should be really run.

My heart bleeds for the majority in England that are anti Tory, and anti austerity. (Only 36.9% of the UK voted Tory). Therefore, thankfully the majority of the population do have a social conscious! Phew!

However, my financial circumstances are my business, and not for forum viewing to use to point score.


----------



## patsymatsy

Sweety said:


> Didn't Scotland vote NOT to break free last year?
> 
> I don't think Scotland are subsidising England.
> 
> As for England not wanting to let Scotland go, Scotland had every chance to go last year and chose not to.


Westminster promised "The Vow" at the last minute, when YES was ahead in the polls.... and the weak minded believed it. Otherwise I believe we would have won the Indy Ref. "The Vow" tricked many (not me though).

What happened on thursday in Scotland SHOWS that we no longer believe any promises made by Westminster!


----------



## Ang2

The answer to all problems, is increasing the minimum wage significantly, to something like £12 per hour. People need to be encouraged into work, and working needs to make peoples' lives so much better than living on benefits. All the money, saved on tax credits (topping up income) could be spent elsewhere on creating new jobs.

To pretend that those exploiting the benefits system is a tiny proportion - is lunacy!


----------



## Rafa

patsymatsy said:


> I do give to food banks regularly, it is something we do par for the course up here. I love the fact I live in Scotland where we still want to look after each other, rather than the dog eat dog uncaring situation that has arisen in England. There are a lot of people in England that look towards us in envy, and as an example of how things should be really run.
> 
> My heart bleeds for the majority in England that are anti Tory, and anti austerity. (Only 36.9% of the UK voted Tory). Therefore, thankfully the majority of the population do have a social conscious! Phew!
> 
> However, my financial circumstances are my business, and not for forum viewing to use to point score.


And I would love to know where you get your facts from.

How do you know there are a lot of people in England that "look towards you in envy"?


----------



## stuaz

patsymatsy said:


> I do give to food banks regularly, it is something we do par for the course up here. I love the fact I live in Scotland where we still want to look after each other, rather than the dog eat dog uncaring situation that has arisen in England. There are a lot of people in England that look towards us in envy, and as an example of how things should be really run.
> 
> My heart bleeds for the majority in England that are anti Tory, and anti austerity. (Only 36.9% of the UK voted Tory). Therefore, thankfully the majority of the population do have a social conscious! Phew!
> 
> However, my financial circumstances are my business, and not for forum viewing to use to point score.


i really must visit this "Scotland" that you speak of, it sounds so magical and perfect. The last time I went there the people were just like people in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the other regions.....perhaps I went to the wrong parts.

Crazy to thnk we are a UNITED Kingdom ...


----------



## patsymatsy

Sweety said:


> And I would love to know where you get your facts from.
> 
> How do you know there are a lot of people in England that "look towards you in envy"?


----------



## Ang2

Satori said:


> One of your better contributions.


Stop it! LOL


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

patsymatsy said:


> I do give to food banks regularly, it is something we do par for the course up here. I love the fact I live in Scotland where we still want to look after each other, rather than the dog eat dog uncaring situation that has arisen in England. There are a lot of people in England that look towards us in envy, and as an example of how things should be really run.
> 
> My heart bleeds for the majority in England that are anti Tory, and anti austerity. (Only 36.9% of the UK voted Tory). Therefore, thankfully the majority of the population do have a social conscious! Phew!
> 
> However, my financial circumstances are my business, and not for forum viewing to use to point score.


As I thought - typical socialist - full of plans for other peoples money. We have food banks too so who do you think funds them and donates to them - is it the Scots sending money and food south of the border. By the way 36.9% voted Tory but a further 12.6 % voted UKIP making 49.5% who don't want or agree with Labour policies. The combined Labour/SNP/Green vote was 38.9%


----------



## patsymatsy

Satori said:


> Actually you pay about £400 per head more tax and receive £1300 per head more through the Barnett formula.


Rubbish, quote all the figures you want. We in Scotland have the real facts and figures!

Think about it, why would we want FREEDOOOOM if we really needed hand fed charity from Westminster? We would know not to bite the hand that feeds. The fact is, England needs us.


----------



## rona

patsymatsy said:


> I do give to food banks regularly, it is something we do par for the course up here. I love the fact I live in Scotland where we still want to look after each other, rather than the dog eat dog uncaring situation that has arisen in England. There are a lot of people in England that look towards us in envy, and as an example of how things should be really run.
> 
> My heart bleeds for the majority in England that are anti Tory, and anti austerity. (Only 36.9% of the UK voted Tory). Therefore, thankfully the majority of the population do have a social conscious! Phew!
> 
> However, my financial circumstances are my business, and not for forum viewing to use to point score.


I do envy those in Scotland, only because of those wide open spaces though.


----------



## Rafa

patsymatsy said:


> Rubbish, quote all the figures you want. We in Scotland have the real facts and figures!
> 
> Think about it, why would we want FREEDOOOOM if we really needed hand fed charity from Westminster? We would know not to bite the hand that feeds. The fact is, England needs us.


You don't want FREEDOOOOM. You voted against it.

I too must make haste to this Mystical Land where everyone loves everybody else, gives money and food to all and subsidises cruel England.

By the way. How is the Scottish Army these days? I hope they're all well. After all, you wouldn't want to be relying on England in the event of an invasion.


----------



## patsymatsy

Mark says it better than I could!


----------



## Satori

rottiepointerhouse said:


> By the way 36.9% voted Tory but a further 12.6 % voted UKIP making 49.5% who don't want or agree with Labour policies. The combined Labour/SNP/Green vote was 38.9%


Now you are just confusing things by introducing facts.


----------



## patsymatsy

rona said:


> I do envy those in Scotland, only because of those wide open spaces though.


You should come for a visit


----------



## rona

patsymatsy said:


> You should come for a visit


Haven't got enough disposable income to do that


----------



## patsymatsy

Sweety said:


> You don't want FREEDOOOOM. You voted against it.
> 
> I too must make haste to this Mystical Land where everyone loves everybody else, gives money and food to all and subsidises cruel England.
> 
> By the way. How is the Scottish Army these days? I hope they're all well. After all, you wouldn't want to be relying on England in the event of an invasion.


The idiots that voted NO to Independence (due to Westminster trickery), have changed their minds and woke up... too late though. But better late than never!

Did you miss the news? 56 seats out of 59 seats in Scotland were gained by the Scottish NATIONAL party, who stand for the Independence of Scotland. If Indy Ref was repeated tomorrow the vote would be YES!


----------



## Satori

Let's not feed it. It is spoiling what was an adult conversation. Can't believe I took the bait.


----------



## patsymatsy

Satori said:


> Let's not feed it. It is spoiling what was an adult conversation .


And your above comment demonstrates exactly the attitude of a Tory voter. And calling me "it" says more about you than it does about me.

My political view, and contribution to this thread is as valid as anyone elses.

And you wonder why we want Independence?

I am exiting this thread, life is too short. #lostcauses


----------



## Ang2

patsymatsy said:


> The idiots that voted NO to Independence (due to Westminster trickery), have changed their minds and woke up... too late though. But better late than never!
> 
> Did you miss the news? 56 seats out of 59 seats in Scotland were gained by the Scottish NATIONAL party, who stand for the Independence of Scotland. If Indy Ref was repeated tomorrow the vote would be YES!


SNP only got 50% of votes


----------



## rona

patsymatsy said:


> View attachment 230665





patsymatsy said:


> I am exiting this thread, life is too short. #lostcauses


Bye bye alien


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

patsymatsy said:


> And your above comment demonstrates exactly the attitude of a Tory voter. And calling me "it" says more about you than it does about me.
> 
> My political view, and contribution to this thread is as valid as anyone elses.
> 
> And you wonder why we want Independence?
> 
> I am exiting this thread, life is too short. #lostcauses


Bye Belinda its been nice talking to you again


----------



## silvi

Satori said:


> Let's not feed it. It is spoiling what was an adult conversation. Can't believe I took the bait.


Actually, that's unfair (especially as you changed your post while I was writing mine ).

We could argue facts and figures all night, but it will not detract from the fact that people living in England _were_ saying "perhaps we should move to Scotland" when the election results were announced.
They may not have been serious come the next day, but the feeling was definitely there.

And to insult Patsy as 'a typical socialist' (not you Satori) as if that is some sort of insult, was also uncalled for.
Neither I, nor Noush, or other forum members who probably consider themselves socialist were derided that way.

What I do wonder about is whether the people of Scotland voted SNP simply because they were a nationalist party, or because they like their anti-austerity stance (or perhaps their anti-trident stance) and I'm not sure that was clear.

But I agree with Patsy (Belinda??) that the UK does need Scotland as part of the Union, otherwise why were MPs across the board so keen on trying to push the 'no' vote during the run up to the independence vote?


----------



## patsymatsy

Ang2 said:


> SNP only got 50% of votes


That was because the vote was split over 4 different political parties. Hence 50% SNP, the other 50%. was divided between the other three parties

Indy Ref was simply YES or a NO. 

And a side note, thank you forum member Silvi! x


----------



## Rafa

Yes, goodbye Belinda.

Keep trying. Who knows? Maybe once day, we'll realise that we're all uncaring, mindless idiots and move en masse to Scotland.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

silvi said:


> Actually, that's unfair (especially as you changed your post while I was writing mine ).
> 
> *And to insult Patsy as 'a typical socialist' (not you Satori) as if that is some sort of insult, was also uncalled for.*
> Neither I, nor Noush, or other forum members who probably consider themselves socialist were derided that way.
> 
> ?


It might have been a bit below the belt but how come you haven't called out any of the members who have called us "thick" "self centred" "harsh/cruel" including Patsy/Belinda in her post below. Why is OK to slate Tory voters but not socialists?

Precisely, this is how I view Tory voters...."'Voting Conservative appeals to self-interest rather than communal interest, so some of its supporters feel ashamed to admit it. Imagine if you gathered a hundred people in a room and told them they could vote for everyone to be given £50 each, or for them to be given a thousand pounds personally but everyone else gets nothing. In public most people would probably vote for sharing, but in a secret ballot some would put a sneaky cross in a box for swiping the lot. In part that's what happened on Thursday - except no one will ever be given the £1,000."


----------



## Satori

silvi said:


> Actually, that's unfair (especially as you changed your post while I was writing mine ).
> 
> We could argue facts and figures all night, but it will not detract from the fact that people living in England _were_ saying "perhaps we should move to Scotland" when the election results were announced.
> They may not have been serious come the next day, but the feeling was definitely there.
> 
> And to insult Patsy as 'a typical socialist' (not you Satori) as if that is some sort of insult, was also uncalled for.
> Neither I, nor Noush, or other forum members who probably consider themselves socialist were derided that way.
> 
> What I do wonder about is whether the people of Scotland voted SNP simply because they were a nationalist party, or because they like their anti-austerity stance (or perhaps their anti-trident stance) and I'm not sure that was clear.
> 
> But I agree with Patsy (Belinda??) that the UK does need Scotland as part of the Union, otherwise why were MPs across the board so keen on trying to push the 'no' vote during the run up to the independence vote?


Typical socialist.


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> It might have been a bit below the belt but how come you haven't called out any of the members who have called us "thick" "self centred" "harsh/cruel" including Patsy/Belinda in her post below. Why is OK to slate Tory voters but not socialists?
> 
> Precisely, this is how I view Tory voters...."'Voting Conservative appeals to self-interest rather than communal interest, so some of its supporters feel ashamed to admit it. Imagine if you gathered a hundred people in a room and told them they could vote for everyone to be given £50 each, or for them to be given a thousand pounds personally but everyone else gets nothing. In public most people would probably vote for sharing, but in a secret ballot some would put a sneaky cross in a box for swiping the lot. In part that's what happened on Thursday - except no one will ever be given the £1,000."


Good point.
But there again, I don't think I personally have said that anyone is thick, cruel, or self-centred, although I will admit in a couple of cases on this thread I have thought that but also thought it didn't help the conversation to say so.

I just don't like to see _individual_ forum members singled out for ridicule.

But fair enough, if you think that it is as bad to malign people as a group as to single them out for individual insults, then I hold my hands up and admit I haven't complained and yes, you have a point there.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

silvi said:


> Good point.
> But there again, I don't think I personally have said that anyone is thick, cruel, or self-centred, although I will admit in a couple of cases on this thread I have thought that but also thought it didn't help the conversation to say so.
> 
> I just don't like to see _individual_ forum members singled out for ridicule.
> 
> But fair enough, if you think that it is as bad to malign people as a group, then I hold my hands up and admit I haven't complained.


Thank you. I think the few of us who dared to put our heads above the parapet were given quite a hammering - considering 47 people took part in the poll saying they voted Tory or UKIP not many have been brave enough to take part in this debate and I can see why. Hey ho all's fair in love and war. If Patsy is Belinda which I'm pretty sure she is then she has been banned several times in the past.


----------



## patsymatsy

silvi said:


> Good point.
> But there again, I don't think I personally have said that anyone is thick, cruel, or self-centred, although I will admit in a couple of cases on this thread I have thought that but also thought it didn't help the conversation to say so.
> 
> I just don't like to see _individual_ forum members singled out for ridicule.
> 
> But fair enough, if you think that it is as bad to malign people as a group as to single them out for individual insults, then I hold my hands up and admit I haven't complained and yes, you have a point there.


I was always talking generally about Tories and Tory voters! Not once did I single any one member, and make it personal about them.

The Tory voters sure did make it personal towards me, even had the cheek to want to know my personal financial situation.

Typical Tories (generally speaking) always trying to demonise other people, to justify/distract from their very anti social and VERY uncaring political views.

Is being called Belinda an insult, I haven't a clue (stumped)? But being called an "it" sure is.

Now I am off to chat with like minded Socialists elsewhere, who actually care about people and the world we live in!


----------



## patsymatsy

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you. I think the few of us who dared to put our heads above the parapet were given quite a hammering - considering 47 people took part in the poll saying they voted Tory or UKIP not many have been brave enough to take part in this debate and I can see why. Hey ho all's fair in love and war. If Patsy is Belinda which I'm pretty sure she is then she has been banned several times in the past.


This explains the "Belinda" thing. I can confirm my name is not Belinda. I am guessing she is a SNP supporter also (not read the whole thread)? I can hazard a guess that on a forum as big as this one, I am not the only SNP supporter. Please do not confuse us all.


----------



## shadowmare

patsymatsy said:


> The idiots that voted NO to Independence (due to Westminster trickery), have changed their minds and woke up... too late though. But better late than never!
> 
> Did you miss the news? 56 seats out of 59 seats in Scotland were gained by the Scottish NATIONAL party, who stand for the Independence of Scotland. If Indy Ref was repeated tomorrow the vote would be YES!


I am embarrassed for you.


----------



## Changes

Bisbow said:


> I wondered how long it would be before the Royal Family got dragged in.
> 
> Unemployed, I bet the Queen works a lot harder than you, she does me I would not ant her job for all her money.
> Help and rescue helicopter pilot, just a hobby I suppose.
> Fighting in Afghanistan, just wanted to pass the time away from a boring life I suppose
> 
> When are some of you going to value what this country has that the rest of the world envy
> 
> The election is over, live with it


Interesting that you wondered when someone would drag the royal family in... It seems that anyone can drag the 
unemployed in... Anyone can drag anyone in, but me, I am dragging the single most expensive family that are dependent on benefits.
You think that the Queen works harder than me? You don't know anything about me!
There are lots of people that are rescue pilots and soldiers, that don't get the rest of their bills paid, 
some soldiers come back from the war without a home, or a job, because the system chooses to say that two men are more valuable that 10,000 men!
There is enough wealth in this country if it was redistributed fairly to adequately house, clothe, feed, educate and support every man woman and child, regardless of background.


----------



## MCWillow

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do you? do you voluntarily give a share of your wages every month to the homeless or food banks? do you own your own home? if so when you sell it will you be donating the equity/rise in value to fund all these wonderful ideas? If I won the lottery I could be very benevolent and come up with no end of good causes to support and enjoy planning how to spend my winnings but as I live in the real world I have to stick to a budget and work out what is coming in and what is going out then spend the rest appropriately.
> 
> *By the way your name isn't Belinda is it*?


Took the words right out of my mouth. I wonder how many times a member has to be banned and comes back with a new name, before it is spotted and can spread it utter b*llsh!t hatred again?

Join a fecking SCOTTISH animal forum, if one with a majority of English posters offends you so much. Unless of course you only joined to spew your crap, and nothing to do with animals at all. Which kinda makes you the stupid one for joining a pet forum in the first place.....


----------



## Satori

@noushka05 Amber Rudd got a promotion. A glint of light at the end of the tunnel?


----------



## MCWillow

patsymatsy said:


> That was because the vote was split over 4 different political parties. Hence 50% SNP, the other 50%. was divided between the other three parties
> 
> Indy Ref was simply YES or a NO.
> 
> And a side note, thank you forum member Silvi! x


And the result was NO. So what part of that are you finding difficult yo understand?

YES or NO - NO won, which means that more than 50% voted NO.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Changes said:


> Interesting that you wondered when someone would drag the royal family in... It seems that anyone can drag the
> unemployed in... Anyone can drag anyone in, but me, I am dragging the single most expensive family that are dependent on benefits.
> You think that the Queen works harder than me? You don't know anything about me!
> There are lots of people that are rescue pilots and soldiers, that don't get the rest of their bills paid,
> some soldiers come back from the war without a home, or a job, because the system chooses to say that two men are more valuable that 10,000 men!
> There is enough wealth in this country if it was redistributed fairly to adequately house, clothe, feed, educate and support every man woman and child, regardless of background.


That may be true but I thought they called that communism.


----------



## Changes

rottiepointerhouse said:


> That may be true but I thought they called that communism.


Do you think the word communism is going to cause a reaction, interesting that you brought it up, call that conditioning, to anything that defies the system of Capitalism,

Our society has been broken by a system that only directs the money one way, up... to reenforce control they are going to get the money from the poorest, our unemployed, disabled, elderly, young, the media has demonised these people and on a daily basis people are having their benefits sanctioned, their bedrooms taxed, so if we stand by and let them take the £70 a week benefit from 1000 claiments look what we have got £70,000 extra pounds, now we could give the extra cash we have just taken from the people that need it the most and we could give that money to the grand old duke of york, who really needs to go and watch the golf, so he uses the cash to charter a private plane and we do nothing, we watch his plane and feel nothing, we have been conditioned to feel that he is entitled to his plane and comforts he is a royal.

Don't you think it is strange that there wasn't a national outcry when we had to bail out the banks to the tune of £955bn, nothing was reported on a major scale, everything was business as normal, people are so busy trying to juggle their daily lives that they don't even look up, isn't it interesting that there were major anti austerity marches in London, the Sun Newspaper, reports that Lousi Walsh is being sacked from the X Factor, It's called conditioning, or stockholm syndrome, you have fallen into line with your captors, you start defending their policies, let's all hate the benefit scroungers that we tell you to hate...

*Stockholm syndrome*, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.

*Mind web* "Captivity, by one or other form of slavery, has been the fate of almost everyone during the whole history of human political activity. If you think that you are not caught up in some form of slavery (in particular, slavery to implanted beliefs) then you are either captivated and blinded by your situation and the deceit of our oppressors"

Be happy


----------



## MCWillow

Changes said:


> Do you think the word communism is going to cause a reaction, interesting that you brought it up, call that conditioning, to anything that defies the system of Capitalism,
> 
> Our society has been broken by a system that only directs the money one way, up... to reenforce control they are going to get the money from the poorest, our unemployed, disabled, elderly, young, the media has demonised these people and on a daily basis people are having their benefits sanctioned, their bedrooms taxed, so if we stand by and let them take the £70 a week benefit from 1000 claiments look what we have got £70,000 extra pounds, now we could give the extra cash we have just taken from the people that need it the most and we could give that money to the grand old duke of york, who really needs to go and watch the golf, so he uses the cash to charter a private plane and we do nothing, we watch his plane and feel nothing, we have been conditioned to feel that he is entitled to his plane and comforts he is a royal.
> 
> Don't you think it is strange that there wasn't a national outcry when we had to bail out the banks to the tune of £955bn, nothing was reported on a major scale, everything was business as normal, people are so busy trying to juggle their daily lives that they don't even look up, isn't it interesting that there were major anti austerity marches in London, the Sun Newspaper, reports that Lousi Walsh is being sacked from the X Factor, It's called conditioning, or stockholm syndrome, you have fallen into line with your captors, you start defending their policies, let's all hate the benefit scroungers that we tell you to hate...
> 
> *Stockholm syndrome*, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.
> 
> *Mind web* "Captivity, by one or other form of slavery, has been the fate of almost everyone during the whole history of human political activity. If you think that you are not caught up in some form of slavery (in particular, slavery to implanted beliefs) then you are either captivated and blinded by your situation and the deceit of our oppressors"
> 
> Be happy


So you think that anyone that may disagree with your views has been brainwashed?

Good argument....................

be happy


----------



## Changes

MCWillow said:


> So you think that anyone that may disagree with your views has been brainwashed?
> 
> Good argument....................


Not at all, that's what you think I think 

I am always happy xx


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Changes said:


> Do you think the word communism is going to cause a reaction, interesting that you brought it up, call that conditioning, to anything that defies the system of Capitalism,
> 
> Our society has been broken by a system that only directs the money one way, up... to reenforce control they are going to get the money from the poorest, our unemployed, disabled, elderly, young, the media has demonised these people and on a daily basis people are having their benefits sanctioned, their bedrooms taxed, so if we stand by and let them take the £70 a week benefit from 1000 claiments look what we have got £70,000 extra pounds, now we could give the extra cash we have just taken from the people that need it the most and we could give that money to the grand old duke of york, who really needs to go and watch the golf, so he uses the cash to charter a private plane and we do nothing, we watch his plane and feel nothing, we have been conditioned to feel that he is entitled to his plane and comforts he is a royal.
> 
> Don't you think it is strange that there wasn't a national outcry when we had to bail out the banks to the tune of £955bn, nothing was reported on a major scale, everything was business as normal, people are so busy trying to juggle their daily lives that they don't even look up, isn't it interesting that there were major anti austerity marches in London, the Sun Newspaper, reports that Lousi Walsh is being sacked from the X Factor, It's called conditioning, or stockholm syndrome, you have fallen into line with your captors, you start defending their policies, let's all hate the benefit scroungers that we tell you to hate...
> 
> *Stockholm syndrome*, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.
> 
> *Mind web* "Captivity, by one or other form of slavery, has been the fate of almost everyone during the whole history of human political activity. If you think that you are not caught up in some form of slavery (in particular, slavery to implanted beliefs) then you are either captivated and blinded by your situation and the deceit of our oppressors"
> 
> Be happy


Thank you I am 

No I didn't think communism was going to cause a reaction - it was a simple question. I've been very lucky and never been out of work so I've never had to claim benefits and I am thankful for that. I have however paid a lot of tax, higher rate for many years too (and I'm not complaining although it would be nice if they raised the threshold a bit) so I don't quite see how you can say that money is only being directed one way. It isn't , those of us lucky enough to be in work pay tax to help run our country and support those not so lucky. I also don't agree that there was no outcry over the banks needing to be bailed out - there has been plenty of outcry and that happened on labours watch thanks to Gordon Brown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-doctor-damian-mcbride-reveals-8831362.html

As for the royal family, I'm very proud to be part of a nation that has such a dedicated and loyal Queen although I admit some of the hangers on should be axed from the public payroll and made to support themselves but personally I think most of them bring far more to this country than they take including a great sense of pride in our history, culture and customs. God save the Queen :Joyful


----------



## MCWillow

Changes said:


> Not at all, that's what you think I think
> 
> I am always happy xx


Actually I don't think that - which is why I asked the question (notice the '?' on the end?)

Glad you're always happy - nice question dodge


----------



## Changes

MCWillow said:


> Actually I don't think that - which is why I asked the question (notice the '?' on the end?)
> 
> Glad you're always happy - nice question dodge


Thank you 

I don't think all people are brainwashed because they don't agree with me, I am glad that people don't always agree with me, makes life fun and interesting.

I sometimes agree with me, which is what counts  also I am open to having my beliefs changed -


----------



## cheekyscrip

News today: Polish President wants Westminster style system to replace PR...

Why?...because coalitions of more than two parties...which is common if you have seven or more main players are unstable and so absorbed in inner fights for posts that hardly accomplish anything they start.

As seen in many EU countries..plus govs falling every few months and extra elections..

If you think communism has no "royals"...just look ...welcome to North Korea..
So far this system of everyone equal...proved that if applied to Sahara it will run out of sand.

It is not knew..it was tried and failed...and people were DYING to revert it back to capitalism.

One can try Scandinavian style version of capitalism...but that also need those solid, hard working, tax paying law abiding folk who have that system...but they also seem to have problems with benefit scroungers...


To all advocating communism I advise to spend few good years as a regular citizen there...say North Korea..
Then we will be talking..


----------



## patsymatsy

cheekyscrip said:


> News today: Polish President wants Westminster style system to replace PR...
> 
> Why?...because coalitions of more than two parties...which is common if you have seven or more main players are unstable and so absorbed in inner fights for posts that hardly accomplish anything they start.
> 
> As seen in many EU countries..plus govs falling every few months and extra elections..
> 
> If you think communism has no "royals"...just look ...welcome to North Korea..
> So far this system of everyone equal...proved that if applied to Sahara it will run out of sand.
> 
> It is not knew..it was tried and failed...and people were DYING to revert it back to capitalism.
> 
> One can try Scandinavian style version of capitalism...but that also need those solid, hard working, tax paying law abiding folk who have that system...but they also seem to have problems with benefit scroungers...
> 
> To all advocating communism I advise to spend few good years as a regular citizen there...say North Korea..
> Then we will be talking..


Socialism is NOT Communism  #justsayin'


----------



## rona

Changes said:


> *Mind web* "Captivity, by one or other form of slavery, has been the fate of almost everyone during the whole history of human political activity. If you think that you are not caught up in some form of slavery (in particular, slavery to implanted beliefs) then you are either captivated and blinded by your situation and the deceit of our oppressors"


I actually believe this though not necessarily the piece in brackets. We all have the capability to think for ourselves, if we allow others to lead us by the nose then it is no ones fault but our own. 
We may be being conditioned as children but as adults we have free will . We may still be trapped by the system but our minds are still our own


----------



## Ang2

Changes said:


> Do you think the word communism is going to cause a reaction, interesting that you brought it up, call that conditioning, to anything that defies the system of Capitalism,
> 
> Our society has been broken by a system that only directs the money one way, up... to reenforce control they are going to get the money from the poorest, our unemployed, disabled, elderly, young, the *media has demonised these people and on a daily basis people are having their benefits sanctioned, . *


What are you talking about? Where have the media demonised the disabled/elderly? I think the media are quite sympathetic towards the genuinely disabled and the elderly. Do you think they should be writing stuff like "poor old John and Jenny, with 14 kids, who haven't worked for the last decade,(lets not mention that bit though) are In desperate need of a bigger council house after the birth of yet another child"? Do you mean these kind of people who have been demonised? The only disabled people who are demonised, are those caught out, claiming disability, whilst unloading washing machines from the back of a lorry!


----------



## noushka05

This thread has moved on a bit lol I'll have to catch up but just picking up on these for now.



rona said:


> Jobs aren't secure though are they?
> 
> I have two sisters who have claimed because of redundancy. I didn't when I was made redundant but then I can and do survive on half the minimum wage


If you can live on half the minimum wage Rona than, like me, you must be very fortunate to have either paid off your mortgage, have a small mortgage or live in affordable social housing accommodation. Most people struggling aren't as fortunate as we are - they NEED help just to survive. Unfortunately the government is ripping away the safety net for them.



cheekyscrip said:


> Well..seeing Tories victory market went up nicely.
> 
> So much for Wall Street.
> I never even said that Tories will be good choice..I think good for some things. Bad for others...I am worried about Euro vote, which Labour said not to and worried about NHS..
> And foxes.
> But it was legal election..now another election in different country surprised too. Good president and good man might be out.
> This is democracy.
> Want to be sure left extremists are in power..North Korea is a good choice..
> Their health care, animal welfare education must be paradise..
> 
> I am soft leftie and so is OH.
> But even us were repelled by Red Ed dealings with his brother..this where things might have gone different for this election and you cannot blame anyone Labour inner politics for that.
> 
> Labour dug their own grave and put a tombstone on it.
> 
> Now they go shouting Tories out!
> I promise here officially if you Noush will be a candidate and I am allowed to vote ..then I will!..
> Or eat my underwear.


The last five years should tell you that means nothing to most ordinary people - or the economy if the economists are to be believed.

And what good is any sort of economy on a dead planet anyway Cheeky ? 



If it is a democracy than its our democratic right to protest, the Tory election campaign was based on lies and scaremongering. People are angry .
North Korea has arguably much more in common with a fascism regime than with extreme left wing ideology. Socialists aren't fighting for some cruel dictatorship, quite the opposite, they want a fairer, altruistic society.

I wouldn't say it was 'labour' shouting 'tories out'. More like a mass of people who are outraged at the tory partys cruel policies & their underhanded election campaign. People from all left of centre politics I would have thought.

Wot? You'd vote for me?




ouesi said:


> I wonder what the actual cost to taxpayers is of those abusing the welfare system. I know it seems like a lot of people are abusing the system, but I wonder what the actual numbers are and what the actual cost is.
> 
> And then I'd like to see that number compared to the cost of big corporations evading taxes, or even the tax cuts of big corporations. I wonder what those numbers might look like.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the money is there. The prosperity is there. A fair distribution of the profits and prosperity is not there. Of course you say stuff like that and get branded a communist. Oh well...
> 
> -





ouesi said:


> Here you go - (sorry I messed up the quote thing - that's why your post is purple lol)


Try again :/


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> @noushka05 Amber Rudd got a promotion. A glint of light at the end of the tunnel?


She actually believes in climate change so that's a start lol . I guess it depends if she has the power to reverse this stupid law of maximise the economic recovery of UK oil & gas. To invest in onshore wind again.


----------



## noushka05

Blimey I'm rubbish on this forum! Its here Ouesi -


----------



## Bisbow

Changes said:


> Interesting that you wondered when someone would drag the royal family in... It seems that anyone can drag the
> unemployed in... Anyone can drag anyone in, but me, I am dragging the single most expensive family that are dependent on benefits.
> You think that the Queen works harder than me? You don't know anything about me!
> There are lots of people that are rescue pilots and soldiers, that don't get the rest of their bills paid,
> some soldiers come back from the war without a home, or a job, because the system chooses to say that two men are more valuable that 10,000 men!
> There is enough wealth in this country if it was redistributed fairly to adequately house, clothe, feed, educate and support every man woman and child, regardless of background.


If you had read my earlier post you would see I said if all the wealth in the country was equally shared out in twelve months there would be people that made the money work for them and those that fritter it away and still expect everyone else to subsidise them.. I expect you will then say the rest of us should do so.

And yes, I do think the Queen works harder than you especially at her age, will you be working at that age to help your country,.and she brings in more than she takes out.
Wake up to the facts before you start deriding people


----------



## JANICE199

noushka05 said:


> Blimey I'm rubbish on this forum! Its here Ouesi -


*And i bet noushka, people will ignore these figures and STILL moan about benefit fraud. *


----------



## Guest

Happy commie here 
I’ve always said that one day I’m going to buy a lot of land, and build a self-sufficient, environmentally friendly, commune


----------



## Lurcherlad

Colliebarmy said:


> Labour has ALWAYS been spend, spend, spend, even if it's borrowed money (or especially when it is) Between the Labour socialists and Labour communists the country suffered, but dont worry, the UK electorate has a poor memory, in 5 years Labour will get back in and it can all start again


That's what they thought this time - thankfully, they were wrong! 

Bottom line - time will tell

Personally, I think Nicola Sturgeon is more dangerous


----------



## Mulish

Bisbow said:


> If you had read my earlier post you would see I said if all the wealth in the country was equally shared out in twelve months there would be people that made the money work for them and those that fritter it away and still expect everyone else to subsidise them.. I expect you will then say the rest of us should do so.
> 
> And yes, I do think the Queen works harder than you especially at her age, will you be working at that age to help your country,.and she brings in more than she takes out.
> Wake up to the facts before you start deriding people


I agree with your first point. There will always be the squanderers who refuse to accept any responsibility for themselves and expect to be bailed out by the more frugal (or lucky). As one of the frugal (and quite lucky) that attitude does irritate me. However, that sort of entitlement isn't found just among the poor (that's a general point, not aimed at you Bisbow) and the idea that it is irks me even more.

As to your second paragraph, well, I'm pretty sure a lot of us will still be working hard at the Queen's age with the way retirement age is rising. Unfortunately for us, we won't have access to the same level of healthcare or high standard of living she enjoys.


----------



## Elles

They're just guessing. People are more concerned about benefit entitlement I think though. They see it as some people getting more than they think they should and others not getting what they think they deserve. eg The person having 10 kids to get as much money and help as possible despite having no intention of ever working and seemingly spending more of the money on themselves than their children (and putting their children in the same loop, which doesn't bode well for the future) vs the disabled person who can't work, but who is having to jump through hoops to get anything, if at all. Programmes like benefits street don't help. If we had the choice and were asked to donate money, or given the choice who to give it to, instead of it just being taken from us and doled out on our behalf, who would we give our money to? Most people want the NHS and a Welfare state, or we wouldn't have got it in the first place. We're fed controversial stories about undeserving people taking the mick and hear about people from abroad receiving without contributing, causing hard-working folk and the truly needy to struggle, so of course we want it to stop, regardless of how many there are. We have a small business and would love to be able to afford to employ one or two people, but we can't charge more for our product, we have competitors who don't register for VAT or pay tax and hence can afford to charge less for a similar item. Customers would mostly rather pay less, they don't want to pay more to us so we can employ someone and when they buy, they don't check who they buy from is registered for vat and tax, so we work a lot of hours, try to keep up on our own and earn enough to keep us ticking over. We can't afford holidays, or to be sick. Paying minimum wage doesn't just mean minimum wage either. We'd have to pay NI and employer's insurance on top, so starting to employ people would be very costly for us. My middle son came out of the army a couple of years ago. He came home and works with us. He's one of the luckier ones. If no company avoided paying taxes, whether legally or not and only those in genuine need claimed benefits, we'd all be better off, but then if no-one committed a crime we wouldn't need law and order either and if it was Worldwide, people would mostly stay where they were and felt at home and not be in fear of their lives, or their livelihood. Now wouldn't that be nice.


----------



## Ang2

JANICE199 said:


> *And i bet noushka, people will ignore these figures and STILL moan about benefit fraud. *


But, why should ANY of these figures be ignored? You talk like £3.5 BILLION is nothing!


----------



## JANICE199

Ang2 said:


> But, why should ANY of these figures be ignored? You talk like £3.5 BILLION is nothing!


*Have i missed something? Where did you get £3.5 billion?*


----------



## Ang2

JANICE199 said:


> *Have i missed something? Where did you get £3.5 billion?*


£2.3 and 1.2 BILLION in overpaid and benefit fraud?


----------



## JANICE199

Ang2 said:


> £2.3 and 1.2 BILLION in overpaid and benefit fraud?


*No! £2.3 over paid does not equal fraud. So we are left with £1.2 billion in fraud.*


----------



## Bisbow

It does if it is not paidback


----------



## MyMillie

The 2.3 billion over payment is down to Government error!...


----------



## MyMillie

Bisbow said:


> It does if it is not paidback


Sometimes the people dont realise they have been over paid, government make the mistakes by not working things out properly, which to my mind is their incompetence, not all people will know how much they are entitled too, government sets that one


----------



## JANICE199

*I am going to add this to this thread because i believe it is relevant. Britain is broken, imho, and we need to find a way to mend it again. Cameron says, " we are all in this together", but nothing could be further from the truth.Putting to one side for a moment how i feel about Cameron, but just looking at our society as a whole, it's divided, big time.*
*Unless we get that community spirit back, we will never have a chance of living in a decent society, which also means we won't have a decent country.*
*People of all walks of life in Britain today have lost that caring feeling, and community spirit. We need to get it back. If and when we do, people will be a lot happier.*


----------



## Ang2

JANICE199 said:


> *I am going to add this to this thread because i believe it is relevant. Britain is broken, imho, and we need to find a way to mend it again. Cameron says, " we are all in this together", but nothing could be further from the truth.Putting to one side for a moment how i feel about Cameron, but just looking at our society as a whole, it's divided, big time.*
> *Unless we get that community spirit back, we will never have a chance of living in a decent society, which also means we won't have a decent country.*
> *People of all walks of life in Britain today have lost that caring feeling, and community spirit. We need to get it back. If and when we do, people will be a lot happier.*


The reason people have lost that caring feeling, is because its been abused - big time! Why do you think people like me who voted labour all their lives, have had a change of heart?


----------



## StormyThai

Ang2 said:


> £2.3 and 1.2 BILLION in overpaid and benefit fraud?


Hardly a drop in the ocean compared to 32 BILLION in tax fraud and evasion though is it 

There will always be people out there trying to get things for nothing, and those that make a living off of cheating others...unfortunately it is part of some humans natures...Lets sort out that 32 billion deficit due to fraud before we start attacking the poor and vulnerable!

I spose at least the poor can't afford to run away so are an easier target


----------



## JANICE199

Ang2 said:


> The reason people have lost that caring feeling, is because its been abused - big time! Why do you think people like me who voted labour all their lives, have had a change of heart?


*I can't agree. Benefits were never the issue in our society. I will even go as far as to say, i believe the attitude in this country changed, around mid 70's.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

JANICE199 said:


> *I am going to add this to this thread because i believe it is relevant. Britain is broken, imho, and we need to find a way to mend it again. Cameron says, " we are all in this together", but nothing could be further from the truth.Putting to one side for a moment how i feel about Cameron, but just looking at our society as a whole, it's divided, big time.*
> *Unless we get that community spirit back, we will never have a chance of living in a decent society, which also means we won't have a decent country.*
> *People of all walks of life in Britain today have lost that caring feeling, and community spirit. We need to get it back. If and when we do, people will be a lot happier.*


I don't know where you live Janice but its not broken around here. Society in general has changed and I think that is more to do with people being so busy racing around trying to catch themselves on the way back. A lot of that may be about materialism - who doesn't want their own home, a car and a holiday now and then? However I also blame mobile phones and computers/internet for a lot of the introverted way we live now. Most people seem to walk down the street with headphones on whilst staring at their phones these days so they just don't notice what is going on around them or even if someone speaks to them. However I still believe most people would stop and help someone (if they noticed). I think we are in danger of whipping up hysteria. Nothing is different this week than it was last week. When good old Queenie celebrated her diamond jubilee the crowds came out waving their flags and they will again, next time there is a disaster such as Nepal we will all dig deep and make a donation and every year Children in Need and Comic/Sport Relief will still raise millions of pounds for good causes. Keep the faith Janice


----------



## Mulish

Ang2 said:


> The reason people have lost that caring feeling, is because its been abused - big time! Why do you think people like me who voted labour all their lives, have had a change of heart?


I don't know about you personally but the people I do know who feel similarly to you do so because they are being constantly told that all of their problems are caused by benefit scroungers/immigrants/weirdo religions. We are being bombarded by "them and us" rhetoric and made to feel scared of anything "other". It's very hard to hang on to positive feelings of community when the media is practically shouting, "Watch out! They're behind you!!"

The Tory and UKIP manifestos are all about protecting "us" from "them" so of course they'll get a lot of votes.


----------



## Mulish

MyMillie said:


> Sometimes the people dont realise they have been over paid, government make the mistakes by not working things out properly, which to my mind is their incompetence, not all people will know how much they are entitled too, government sets that one


A few years ago our Working Tax Credit payments suddenly went up. I rang and queried it and was told it was right. Me and hubby sat and looked through their calculations and were unconvinced so he rang and queried it and again was told, nope, it was right. We remained unconvinced so just left the money alone (there'd been a lot of stories about people being forced to pay back money they didn't have at the time).

When it came time for renewal we got a very snotty letter telling us that as we'd been overpaid for the last year, our payments for the following year would be drastically cut and we were lucky they weren't demanding the over payment back immediately. The whole tone and wording were pretty accusatory.

I would have called to complain but each of the phone calls we made involved being on hold for 20 minutes plus so couldn't be bothered. It's a crappy system, I'm not surprised they lose so much money accidentally but, again, the wrong people get blamed.


----------



## Satori

Lurcherlad said:


> Personally, I think Nicola Sturgeon is more dangerous


I find her terrifying. Not only an ruthless ideological loony but very, very clever with it. Did you see her on the Andrew Marr show in Saturday. If not, it is worth a catch up.


----------



## Elles

My area is Labour, a small blob of red, surrounded by a sea of blue. Our MP has been our MP since 1997 when as a gay guy (now in a civil partnership), he beat an openly homophobic, anti abortionist Conservative candidate, despite our area being Conservative for years prior. Said homophobic ex conservative stood for the council elections this year, as a UKIP representative. Despite UKIP doing much better this year and most of their potential councillors here getting around 3 to 4 times the votes they had before as well as GE votes, he got just over 100 votes, which made a good point. It wouldn't matter whose party he stood for, homophobic, anti-abortion GPs, (would you want him as a GP let alone an MP), are not wanted, you couldn't pay me to vote for him, so pay attention UKIP, don't go too far. Generally we like our Labour guy, regardless of who he stands for. Any other candidate would have to work very hard to beat him. The public aren't all bad and have many reasons for voting how they do. I'm not keen on many Labour policies myself, although our MP seems like a good bloke. No one party appealed to me, they all have policies I don't agree with, some moreso than others. I always feel as though my vote could be just voting for someone I don't know, or don't like to have a job, not really for anything much to change. 

However, even though it might make me very unpopular, I did vote UKIP this year in the General election, because I agree with a fair few of their policies, not least many of their animal welfare policies, though not actually with leaving the EU, and I like the public face of Nigel Farage. I think we should stay in the EU, but as an Island have more to say with what happens here, which has to be a little different imo to mainland Europe. If we had proportional representation, I may have voted differently, I don't know. Of course really I'd like the world to be a better place generally, but as it's not yet, the genuinely persecuted should be able to find sanctuary (whether here or elsewhere) until they can go home, if they so decide. If it was 1939 Britain should have taken in all of the persecuted we could from Europe, hard-working, skilled, peaceful folk and others who deserved our protection as long as we could offer it. I'm not quite so sure about vagrants and poor folk from East Europe these days though. Help them better themselves and their country now they are part of the EU, so they don't feel the need to move out, and encourage the displaced to move to countries who have room and will find them useful, give them a purpose, rather than where they think it'll be easiest for them, if indeed that is what they are doing. On saying that there are plenty of folk in the UK who need help to better themselves too and we haven't even touched on potential terrorists, those who think we should all live under Sharia law and Islamophobia. There are no simple answers are there.

I agree. Sort out tax evasion, close loopholes and if large companies won't stay here because they can't avoid tax, bye bye, sell your wares somewhere else. Many of them pay minimum wage too. Small companies and those who are struggling can pay minimum wage and take advantage of zero hour contracts, massive companies earning in the billions damn well shouldn't and they should pay their UK taxes if they trade in the UK, our politicians shouldn't pander to them. That's not to say we should ignore our welfare state and not try to improve on it too though. We should stop persecuting the disabled, if they don't want to work, find it very difficult, or need extra and specialist help, I'm happy for my taxes to comfortably support them (and the elderly). I think some of the stories we've read about their struggles recently have been horrifying.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Satori said:


> I find her terrifying. Not only an ruthless ideological loony but very, very clever with it. Did you see her on the Andrew Marr show in Saturday. If not, it is worth a catch up.


She isn't even an MP though so she won't actually be in there asking questions and taking part in debates so I've got my doubts how influential she will be and how some of her very inexperienced MPs will cope.


----------



## silvi

Mulish said:


> A few years ago our Working Tax Credit payments suddenly went up. I rang and queried it and was told it was right. Me and hubby sat and looked through their calculations and were unconvinced so he rang and queried it and again was told, nope, it was right. We remained unconvinced so just left the money alone (there'd been a lot of stories about people being forced to pay back money they didn't have at the time).
> 
> When it came time for renewal we got a very snotty letter telling us that as we'd been overpaid for the last year, our payments for the following year would be drastically cut and we were lucky they weren't demanding the over payment back immediately. The whole tone and wording were pretty accusatory.
> 
> I would have called to complain but each of the phone calls we made involved being on hold for 20 minutes plus so couldn't be bothered. It's a crappy system, I'm not surprised they lose so much money accidentally but, again, the wrong people get blamed.


Exactly the same thing happened to my sister and her partner. But they weren't quite so lucky.
After ringing for the third time and being assured for the third time that the figures were correct, they said 'okay let's use it' because they sure as hell needed to.
Then they got the accusatory letter (and I agree, it was pretty nasty considering the mistake was made at the office sending the letter!) and their credits were drastically cut accordingly.
They are still trying to recover from that now.


----------



## silvi

'Blue Collar Conservatism' now appears to be the hoped-for catchword.....

My heart has now totally sunk


----------



## Elles

We've had a similar thing. We had to phone at least 4 times to stop being overpaid by them a couple of years back. They wouldn't even discuss it with us outside of April. They don't seem very efficient and who we spoke to on the phone were generally unhelpful. They seemed to be very affronted that our circumstances had changed for the better.


----------



## Goblin

Mulish said:


> The Tory and UKIP manifestos are all about protecting "us" from "them" so of course they'll get a lot of votes.


Hear that constantly.. What about the other side of the coin? Poor vs the rest with emotional "you are uncaring" thrown in.

As to nouska's meme's which as usual don't tell the full story, simple question. Which party has done most to close those high end tax loopholes and penalized the rich?


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> If it is a democracy than its our democratic right to protest, the Tory election campaign was based on lies and scaremongering.


Which says, damn your version of democracy, you're all gullible only our view counts and that is democracy.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Which says, damn your version of democracy, you all gullible only our view counts and that is democracy.


But isn't that exactly what we are getting with a Tory government that most of the population didn't vote for?


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> As to nouska's meme's which as usual don't tell the full story, simple question. Which party has done most to close those high end tax loopholes and penalized the rich?


But it's all relative isn't it?
More and more use of tax loopholes has come to public notice in the last five years, so the government in power were forced to do something about it. The government in power happened to be the Tory coalition.
The question is though, how much _more_ could they have done had they really wanted discourage tax avoidance?


----------



## Elles

Ed Milliband came across to me as insincere. If he said "British people" one more time, I was about to throw my coffee at my tv. :Yawn I expect that's why many people didn't vote labour this time. They didn't like him. Labour need someone more charismatic.  Don't ask me why the none tories voted for Cameron, probably some were scared they'd get Ed and Nicola and that was a more frightening prospect than even Nigel as PM.  

They all change the goalposts (policies) to win don't they? It's not the taking part, it's the winning that counts. They should realise that many people vote for personality not just policy and make sure their personality is good enough to carry their policy. ompus


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> They should realise that many people vote for personality not just policy and make sure their personality is good enough to carry their policy. ompus


Then I can't understand why Cameron is still there. Slimy, greasy, pompous git ..................................He hasn't any personalty has he?


----------



## Fleur

My local elected conservative MP - so ridiculous how can any one represent their electorate on Equality when they decided to vote against equal marriage rights 
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/1...tm_medium=socialFBimg&utm_campaign=PNFacebook


----------



## Elles

I agree Rona. I think he got in by default. His lack of personality is less noticeable than Ed's fake sincerity. Plus between the papers talking about Ed stabbing his brother in the back and potentially teaming up with Nicola, they voted against Milliband, rather than for Cameron. With the Lib Dems seen as betraying their supporters by getting into bed with the Tories, they thought they might as well make sure that at least UKIP don't get in and vote Conservative this time, or in Scotland's case, abandon the lot of them. In my opinion, this GE was more about tactical voting than party support and hardly anyone got what they actually wanted. Could be wrong of course.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> But isn't that exactly what we are getting with a Tory government that most of the population didn't vote for?


However according to the democratic process of the UK which other parties have supported and not changed, the tories have won the election fairly. If labour had won, would the people complaining, including you, start complaining about they weren't voted in by the majority of the population? You don't change rules simply when they go against you but happily swan along when they do.



silvi said:


> But it's all relative isn't it?
> More and more use of tax loopholes has come to public notice in the last five years, so the government in power were forced to do something about it. The government in power happened to be the Tory coalition.
> The question is though, how much _more_ could they have done had they really wanted discourage tax avoidance?


People knew a lot about tax loopholes and have done for years so Labour could have and should have closed some. The argument that people now know and forced the government to close them also pushes the simple fact that people have power to influence policy. I'm no expert on tax loopholes except I know they exist however there is always more than can be done for anything. Difference is the tories have been closing loopholes (goes against the propaganda that Tories only support the rich argument when they hit them with this and other measures). Labour didn't even though they knew they existed. Or are you saying labour couldn't have done more as they didn't know about them?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Elles said:


> Ed Milliband came across to me as insincere. If he said "British people" one more time, I was about to throw my coffee at my tv. :Yawn I expect that's why many people didn't vote labour this time. They didn't like him. Labour need someone more charismatic.  Don't ask me why the none tories voted for Cameron, probably some were scared they'd get Ed and Nicola and that was a more frightening prospect than even Nigel as PM.
> 
> They all change the goalposts (policies) to win don't they? It's not the taking part, it's the winning that counts. They should realise that many people vote for personality not just policy and make sure their personality is good enough to carry their policy. ompus


Actually I think his brother David hit the nail on the head when he said

"Any suggestion the electorate didn't "get it" is wrong. They didn't want what was being offered".


----------



## Colliebarmy

fast forward to May 2020....and the last pre-election PF post on this thread (hitting 2 million posts)

Erm, who we gonna vote for, I hate the Tories


----------



## Satori

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Actually I think his brother David hit the nail on the head when he said
> 
> "Any suggestion the electorate didn't "get it" is wrong. They didn't want what was being offered".


I think that's the size of it. David looked like he was biting his lip a bit when he said that too. The bottom line is that the Labour Party manifesto was just not palatable enough to get the votes needed to win. Even defecting LibDem voters jumped right in greater numbers than they did left.

Even as a someone who leans naturally towards the Tories, I do find that sad. The current government will take things too far without an effective opposition. It's no good for this country to be without an intelligent progressive party with an electable proposition. I hope they find a good leader this time around. (And get some of those Scottish seats back too).


----------



## noushka05

Bisbow said:


> If you had read my earlier post you would see I said if all the wealth in the country was equally shared out in twelve months there would be people that made the money work for them and those that fritter it away and still expect everyone else to subsidise them.. I expect you will then say the rest of us should do so.
> 
> And yes, I do think the Queen works harder than you especially at her age, will you be working at that age to help your country,.and she brings in more than she takes out.
> Wake up to the facts before you start deriding people


. My lovely Grandad grafted down a coal mine for 56 years, from being 14 years old. He was bent double suffered from pneumoconiosis earning his pittance - industrial disease killed him, he died in 1995. He couldnt stand the Royal family (parasites as he called them lol) He use to say the Queen mother would live to be 100. (because of her pampered life) She went on to excel even his prediction. My point is, without decent jobs that pay a living wage, without help when they fall on hard times, without our brilliant NHS many will never have the chance to live to be the Queens age. The Queen is the wealthiest woman on the planet, under the conservatives her personal wealth went up by £10 million last year alone - yet she still receives millions of tax payers money in benefits. All this while almost a million of her subjects are now surviving on foodbanks, 90,000 children are homeless & sick & disabled people left to die. How on earth does she sleep at night?? http://www.theguardian.com/business...-richest-1000-new-high-sunday-times-rich-list

I think David Schneider summed up really well how ludicrous it is lol

*David SchneiderVerified account*‏*r*

*Calls to get tougher on benefit abuse as Mum on state handouts buys grandson £8m helicopter*





RETWEETS *7,431*
FAVORITES *3,019*




JANICE199 said:


> *And i bet noushka, people will ignore these figures and STILL moan about benefit fraud. *


Blimey you weren't wrong? No one defending the Tory party has batted at eyelid at the tax dodgers lol


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> Hear that constantly.. What about the other side of the coin? Poor vs the rest with emotional "you are uncaring" thrown in.
> 
> As to nouska's meme's which as usual don't tell the full story, simple question. Which party has done most to close those high end tax loopholes and penalized the rich?


Penalized the rich? lmao Is that why the wealth of Britains richest 1000 people has hit an all time high? All in this together my ass


----------



## havoc

_the wealth of Britains richest 1000 people has hit an all time high?_
Do you object to anyone making money in general?


----------



## noushka05

Aint that the truth :/ -

*Owen Jones*‏@*OwenJones84*8h8 hours ago
So it's only now becoming clear just how decisive anti-SNP hysteria was in Labour's defeat in England. Grimly effective.

226 retweets177 favorites
*1536*
@*OwenJones84* Anti SNP/ anti Scottish message was being heard in Wales too. At shops, bus stops people talked about it.

Port Talbot, Wales


----------



## Colliebarmy

noushka05 said:


> The Queen is the wealthiest woman on the planet, under the conservatives her personal wealth went up by £10 million last year alone - yet she still receives millions of tax payers money in benefits.


HRH aint even in the top 6!

Christy Walton, who inherited a stake in retailer Wal-Mart, retains the title of world's richest woman. The widow of John Walton has held that spot for five out of the past six years. FORBES pegs her net worth at $41.7 billion, up from $36.7 billion a year ago.

Liliane Bettencourt, the principal heiress to the L'Oreal cosmetics fortune, is the second richest woman, the same rank she held a year ago. Bettencourt, 92, is worth an estimated $40.1 billion; she's not involved in running the company her father founded. Her grandson Jean-Victor Meyers replaced her on the board in 2012. A trial of ten people who allegedly stole hundreds of millions of euros from Bettencourt began in January.

The third richest woman is Alice Walton, daughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton and sister-in-law to Christy Walton. She's used some of her $39.4 billion fortune to purchase art, and in 2011 opened the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas.

One newcomer to the ranks of the richest women is Maria Franca Fissolo, the widow of Italian candy-and-Nutella tycoon Michele Ferrero, who died in February. Fissolo and her son Giovanni Ferrero, the Chief Executive of Ferrero Group, the sweets company, are inheriting one of the world's largest candy fortunes, encompassing Kinder chocolates, Ferrero Rocher chocolates and Tic Tac mints, among other brands. FORBES estimates that Fissolo and her son are worth $23.4 billion. She is the fifth richest woman on the list.

The sixth richest women is a notable name in Silicon Valley and education circles: Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of Apple cofounder Steve Jobs. Worth an estimated $19.5 billion, she is focused on social reform through a group she started called the Emerson Collective and, through College Track, helping students finish college.

Many of the women among the billionaires ranks inherited their wealth from either their husbands or their fathers. Just 29 of the 197 women are self-made billionaires. One newcomer in that subset is Elizabeth Holmes, who, at 31, is also the youngest self-made billionaire in the world. She dropped out of Stanford with an idea for a better blood testing company that uses just a drop of blood. Theranos was valued by investors in 2014 at $9 billion, and she owns half the company, giving her a $4.5 billion net worth.


----------



## Lurcherlad

silvi said:


> But isn't that exactly what we are getting with a Tory government that most of the population didn't vote for?


But, don't blame the Tory voters - blame the voters that didn't vote Labour - that seems to be who most people on here seem to think were the better option - but obviously not enough people in the country did. So we got the Tories because more voters voted for them than any other single party. That's how the system works.

Dare I say it? I wanted another 5 years of Tory/LibDem, actually


----------



## Colliebarmy

Or even the top 16?

http://trending.report/richest-women/


----------



## havoc

_ Dare I say it? I wanted another 5 years of Tory/LibDem, actually_
I wouldn't have minded that either.


----------



## havoc

_The Queen is the wealthiest woman on the planet, under the conservatives her personal wealth went up by £10 million last year alone _
Has it always remained static or fallen under Labour?


----------



## noushka05

havoc said:


> _the wealth of Britains richest 1000 people has hit an all time high?_
> Do you object to anyone making money in general?


No:Wideyed What I'm against is obscene inequality


----------



## Colliebarmy

You could double the benefits for some claimants and INCREASE their problems, but the sales of booze, ****, takeaways and drugs would rocket


----------



## Colliebarmy

havoc said:


> _The Queen is the wealthiest woman on the planet, under the conservatives her personal wealth went up by £10 million last year alone _
> Has it always remained static or fallen under Labour?


She isnt the richest BTW but this is PF where Myths are preferred over facts


----------



## Mulish

silvi said:


> Exactly the same thing happened to my sister and her partner. But they weren't quite so lucky.
> After ringing for the third time and being assured for the third time that the figures were correct, they said 'okay let's use it' because they sure as hell needed to.
> Then they got the accusatory letter (and I agree, it was pretty nasty considering the mistake was made at the office sending the letter!) and their credits were drastically cut accordingly.
> They are still trying to recover from that now.


I'm sorry to hear that, Silvi, and I hope they do manage to recover. It also happened to a friend of mine who is a lot more spend-y than I am. Luckily she listened to me when I suggested she hold on for the year because of what happened to us. Really awful system.



Goblin said:


> Hear that constantly.. What about the other side of the coin? Poor vs the rest with emotional "you are uncaring" thrown in.


Politics in general seems about dividing and conquering. The question Ang asked, though, was why we thought a life long Labour supporter would now vote Tory (or UKIP, can't quite remember) so that's what I was answering. I've not accused anyone of being uncaring, I think we're all mostly worried and/or scared and are being kept that way because it makes us easier to manipulate by* everyone* in power.


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> Penalized the rich? lmao Is that why the wealth of Britains richest 1000 people has hit an all time high? All in this together my ass


So raising how much they actually pay into the system compared to others isn't penalising them. I get it, once again you simply want to take all of what they have from them as they have more than others. Where does it stop? When you have destroyed the economy and forced all the millionaires out of the country? 7 billion lost in 2010 a fact you've consistently ignored.



Colliebarmy said:


> HRH aint even in the top 6!


Come on.. we know meme's count for more than facts or practicality.


----------



## DogLover1981

The different perceptions and opinions on here are interesting. I saw the news about the British elections on the net and I've skimmed through this very long thread. I doubt I would even spoil a vote or not vote. Yes, politicians are corrupt, incompetent, ignore voters, etc. but this has always been true and I'm not sure it's any worse than it's always been. The terms Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism creep me out. The conflict and number of wars fought over these words is crazy to think about and, as far as I know, they didn't even exist prior to the 1800s. I'm kind of "meh" about people using welfare/benefits as I think it's possible that most countries in the world will be facing very high unemployment rates in the future anyways. This is due to computers, automation, robotics, etc. replacing people's jobs. I've seen it speculated that this already happening now to a lesser extent. Most places will need to work out some method of giving lots of people welfare/guaranteed income. There's no way to know for sure that this will happen in future but it's possible, IMO.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> However according to the democratic process of the UK which other parties have supported and not changed, the tories have won the election fairly. If labour had won, would the people complaining, including you, start complaining about they weren't voted in by the majority of the population? You don't change rules simply when they go against you but happily swan along when they do.


That still doesn't answer the point that we still have a democratic right to protest (at the moment anyway....maybe not for much longer)
And truthfully, had Labour got into power and had then not carried out their promises, I would have been protesting as loud as anyone else.



Goblin said:


> People knew a lot about tax loopholes and have done for years so Labour could have and should have closed some. The argument that people now know and forced the government to close them also pushes the simple fact that people have power to influence policy. I'm no expert on tax loopholes except I know they exist however there is always more than can be done for anything. Difference is the tories have been closing loopholes (goes against the propaganda that Tories only support the rich argument when they hit them with this and other measures). Labour didn't even though they knew they existed. Or are you saying labour couldn't have done more as they didn't know about them?


Yes, many of us knew about tax loopholes and their 'overuse' before.
But the crunch factor came when the last government started to hit out at those on benefits, while appearing to ignore the top level who were avoiding paying taxes.
That is why they had to be seen to do something, however limited that something was.

But I agree that Blair's government didn't do enough either and were complicit in giving more power to the banks. In fact, had anyone bothered to listen, Miliband again and again admitted that the previous government had made mistakes and said he would not make the same ones.
As I said before, how many other prospective leaders would admit that a previous party he was fighting for had got it wrong?


----------



## DogLover1981

I get tired of hearing about the elections in the USA and elsewhere. I wish the primaries were moved to only a few weeks or a month ahead of the general election. The earliest primary is almost a year ahead of the general election. I get sick of hearing about the elections and politics because of this. Candidates are already announcing their intentions to run and the general elections aren't even until November 2016. O.O This is Just a general statement but I don't see the point in constantly talking about politics as you can't force people to change their views. People can only change their own views.


----------



## silvi

DogLover1981 said:


> *I get tired of hearing about the elections in the USA and elsewhere.* I wish the primaries were moved to only a few weeks or a month ahead of the general election. The earliest primary is almost a year ahead of the general election. I get sick of hearing about the elections and politics because of this. Candidates are already announcing their intentions to run and the general elections aren't even until November 2016. O.O This is Just a general statement but I don't see the point in constantly talking about politics as you can't force people to change their views. People can only change their own views.


But our Prime Minister obviously wants to join in - he has already started to use their language with his 'Blue Collar Conservatism'.


----------



## Colliebarmy

Colliebarmy said:


> She isnt the richest BTW but this is PF where Myths are preferred over facts


Meanwhile, The Queen's wealth rose by £10million to £330million as the value of personal property such as Sandringham and Balmoral rose, although her ranking fell from 268th to 285th.


----------



## silvi

Lurcherlad said:


> But, don't blame the Tory voters - blame the voters that didn't vote Labour - that seems to be who most people on here seem to think were the better option - but obviously not enough people in the country did. So we got the Tories because more voters voted for them than any other single party. That's how the system works.
> 
> Dare I say it? I wanted another 5 years of Tory/LibDem, actually


I'm not blaming the Tory voters (I've made that plain several times). Although I do feel despair that so many people voted Tory.
But I will be forever blaming the Tories themselves .

And I wonder how many other voters felt just like you and were surprised and a little bit uneasy when their hoped for 'moderating' coalition didn't happen?


----------



## Colliebarmy

Former Armani model Slavica Ecclestone, became one of the richest women in Britain following her divorce from Bernie Ecclestone. 

Her wealth is said to be £740million making her the 136th richest individual in the country.


----------



## Goblin

silvi said:


> That still doesn't answer the point that we still have a democratic right to protest (at the moment anyway....maybe not for much longer)
> And truthfully, had Labour got into power and had then not carried out their promises, I would have been protesting as loud as anyone else.


Protest policies, not the fact you lost. That's the key point. Those protesting "Tories out" are protesting against the Uk democratic process, a process which you use to justify your right to protest. Those who voted the tories in have just as much right to have the government they chose in power.



> Yes, many of us knew about tax loopholes and their 'overuse' before.
> But the crunch factor came when the last government started to hit out at those on benefits, while appearing to ignore the top level who were avoiding paying taxes.
> That is why they had to be seen to do something, however limited that something was.


Reason why doesn't matter. Fact is that the rich are paying more. Reality says you can only raise how much you take before overall you start losing money being raked in as we live in a global economy. I understand life as a millionaire is great in Dubai and you don't have to pay UK taxes there if you are not a resident in the UK.



> But I agree that Blair's government didn't do enough either and were complicit in giving more power to the banks. In fact, had anyone bothered to listen, Miliband again and again admitted that the previous government had made mistakes and said he would not make the same ones.
> As I said before, how many other prospective leaders would admit that a previous party he was fighting for had got it wrong?


Any prospective leader will blame anybody if they think it will mean votes. Then again we have Nouska protesting the last labour government didn't get it wrong. Which is it?

Most millianaires have nothing to do with banks despite what some like to state. The mistake Miliband made was shifting to the left, forgetting that the majority of people are not poor and they aren't millionaires and bringing up promises where simple in/out figures weren't balanced.


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> So raising how much they actually pay into the system compared to others isn't penalising them. I get it, once again you simply want to take all of what they have from them as they have more than others. Where does it stop? When you have destroyed the economy and forced all the millionaires out of the country? 7 billion lost in 2010 a fact you've consistently ignored.
> 
> Come on.. we know meme's count for more than facts or practicality.


Sleight of hand, smoke & mirrors. Goblin - the master of obfuscation  We are not all in this together, the wealthy elite are getting richer. You do know the widely respected IFS?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/05/tories-benefit-cuts-will-add-to-growing-poverty

_Many of us __wrote to the prime minister previously__ urging him to reconsider the social security benefit cuts scheduled for 1 April 2013 and to ensure that no further public spending cuts were targeted on the poorest in our society. Unfortunately our pleas went unheard and those cuts, like the previous ones, *did have a disproportionate impact on the poorest*. So now we have written to him again_.

_The government's claims that "we are all in it together" __have been shown by the Institute for Fiscal Studies__ and other independent researchers to be empty. While the government claims to have cut £21bn from social security, far more has been given away to mainly better-off people by, for example, raising income tax allowances and reducing corporation tax. The increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20% hit people on low incomes the hardest. Disabled people have been treated particularly harshly, with cuts in their living standards of 19 times the average_.

_Our chief concern now is the £12bn of further cuts in the social security budget that have yet to be detailed. In the absence of precise information we (and the electorate) can only speculate on where the cuts might fall. All of the obvious options, such as restricting child benefit to two children, cutting means-tested support for children, means-testing the carers' allowance, ending industrial injuries compensation, introducing regional benefit caps, freezing in-work benefits, cutting rent benefits further and taxing disability benefit would, again, hit the poor hardest. All of these cuts would be necessary to achieve anything close to the huge reduction the government seeks.* There are alternatives: for example, why not instead increase taxation progressively on the better-off (including ourselves) to protect the poor?*_

_As in our previous communication, we continue to be worried by grossly misleading rhetoric concerning those who have to seek support from the welfare state, such as the contrast between__"strivers" and "shirkers"__, which risks undermining trust not only among different sections of society but also across generations. In fact the divisions are not so simple. For example, it is well known that the borderline between low and no pay is fluid. Families move in and out of work and in and out of poverty. Around one in six economically active people have claimed jobseeker's allowance at least once in the last two years (almost 5 million people). The record levels of youth unemployment account for most of those households where no one has ever worked. Some 6.5 million people are underemployed and want to work more. The 50% rise in families receiving working tax credits since 2003 reflects the 20% increase in the working poor, as one in five women and one in seven men earn less than £7 per hour._

_Now the majority of children and working-age adults in poverty live in working, not workless, households. In other words - and ironically in view of the coalition's rhetoric - many of those forced to claim the working-age benefits targeted for further cuts are not what the prime minister calls "shirkers" but, in fact, "hard working families"._
_
The proposal the prime minister put forward last week __to introduce a new law virtually preventing any rise in major taxes__ indicates that he intends to reduce the public sector deficit solely by cutting public spending. This would also inevitably hit the poorest hardest, including children and the working poor, and increase social inequality. The electorate have the right to know how the proposed £12bn cuts will fall. We urge all party leaders to tackle the deficit fairly, to repair the recent damage to the social security system and to cease misleading, and divisive, rhetoric such as "strivers" and "shirkers"._
*Professor Peter Alcock*_University of Birmingham_
*Professor John Baldock*_University of Kent_
*Professor SJ Banks*_University of Durham_
*Professor Marion Barnes*_University of Brighton_
*Professor Tim Blackman*_Open University_
*Professor Jonathan Bradshaw*_University of York_
*Professor Ian Butler*_University of Bath_
*Professor John Clarke*_Open University_
*Professor Jochen Clasen*_University of Edinburgh_
*Professor Sara Ashencaen Crabtree*_University of Bournemouth_
*Professor Lynn Prince Cooke*_University of Bath_
*Professor Gary Craig*_University of Durham_
*Professor Mary Daly*_University of Oxford_
*Professor Alan Deacon*_University of Leeds_
*Professor Bob Deacon*_University of Sheffield_
*Professor Nicholas Deakin*
*Professor V Drennan*_Kingston University_
*Professor Hartley Dean*_LSE_
*Professor Simon Duncan*_University of Bradford_
*Professor Peter Dwyer*_University of York_
*Professor RS Edwards*_University of Southampton_
*Professor Nick Ellison*_University of York_
*Professor Val Gillies*_Goldsmiths University of London_
*Professor Ian Gough*_LSE_
*Professor Caroline Glendinning*_University of York_
*Professor Paul Higgs*_UCL_
*Professor Michael Hill*
*Professor Sir John Hills*
*Professor John Hobcraft*_University of York_
*Professor Ian Rees Jones*_Cardiff University_
*Professor Kathleen Keirnan*_University of York_
*Professor Martin Knapp*_LSE_
*Professor Julian LeGrand*_LSE_
*Professor David Lewis*_LSE_
*Professor Jane Lewis*_LSE_
*Professor Ruth Lister*_University of Loughborough_
*Professor Linda McKie*_University of Durham_
*Professor John Macnicol*_LSE_
*Professor Nigel Malin*_University of Sunderland_
*Professor Nicholas Mayes*_London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine_
*Professor Traute Meyer*_University of Southampton_
*Professor Jane Millar*_University of Bath_
*Professor John Mohan*_University of Birmingham_
*Professor T Newburn*_LSE_
*Professor Michael Noble*_University of Oxford_
*Professor Jan Pahl*_University of Kent_
*Professor J Parker*_University of Bournemouth_
*Professor S Peckham*_University of Kent_
*Professor David Piachaud*_LSE_
*Professor Lorraine Radford*_University of Central Lancashire_
*Professor Tess Ridge*_University of Bath_
*Professor D Robinson*_Sheffield Hallam University_
*Professor Karen Rowlingson*_University of Birmingham_
*Professor Tracy Shildrick*_University of Leeds_
*Professor Adrian Sinfield*_University of Edinburgh_
*Professor Randall Smith*_University of Bristol_
*Professor Peter Taylor-Gooby*_University of Kent_
*Professor Julia Twigg*_University of Kent_
*Professor John Veit-Wilson*_University of Newcastle_
*Professor Alan Walker*_University of Sheffield_
*Professor Carol Walker*_University of Lincoln_
*Professor Robert Walker*_University of Oxford_
*Professor Jane Wheelock*_University of Newcastle_
*Professor Fiona Williams*_University of Leeds_
*Professor Asghar Zaidi*_University of Southampton_

•In this election campaign we have been heartened by the Guardian's efforts to highlight the challenges faced by people living in poverty, for example your excellent reporting on rising numbers of people using food banks. But we are dismayed by the failure of the main political parties to take poverty seriously. From our poverty audit of the various manifestos, it is clear that none of the main parties is committed to addressing the real causes of poverty. The main parties could start addressing their failings on poverty by seeing why the Green party's manifesto scores highest. It requires focus on the longer-term drivers of the problems we face and a systematic understanding of how their policies impact different parts of society.

Where pledges to address poverty exist they are piecemeal and overwhelmingly focused on raising income levels. This is one step towards addressing poverty. But the cuts to welfare in the last five years have done much more than reduce people's income. They have reduced people's ability to access education and learning, to eat healthily, to remain in their community, to make their own life choices, and more. These are all component parts of a flourishing life.

So the Conservative pledge to exempt disability benefits from the benefit freeze, while also scrapping the Human Rights Act, in which broader disability rights are enshrined, for example, simply isn't good enough. Any party that cares about the one in five potential voters who live in poverty must address these issues in the round. Not only is it morally right, it is a sure-fire way to show people, in cynical times, that casting a vote really can change your life.
*Adrian Martin*_University of East Anglia_
*David Hulme*_University of Manchester_
*Iason Gabriel*_University of Oxford_
*Jason Hickel*_LSE_
*Lee Gregory*_University of Birmingham_
*Johnna Montgomerie and Clea Bourne*_Goldsmiths_
*Feargal Cochrane*_University of Kent_
*Katie Tonkiss*_Aston University_
*Ian Cole*_Sheffield Hallam University_
*Tatum Mutharu*_Open University_
*Malcolm Sawyer*_University of Leeds_
*Gerry Mooney and Vickie Cooper*_Open University_
*Michael Orton*_Warwick University_
*Steven Jones*_University of Manchester_
*Tom Shakespeare*_University of East Anglia_
*Nick Watson*_University of Glasgow_
*Cat Tully*_Exeter University_
*Andrew Stirling*Sussex_University_
*Meera Tiwari*_UEL_
*Thomas Pogge*_KCL and Yale University_
*Helen Yanacopolous*_Open University_
*Suman Seth*_University of Oxford_
_Audit authors and advisory board members, Academics Stand Against Poverty_
_www.UKPovertyAudit.org_

•The study of inequalities in life expectancy in England and Wales by Majid Ezzati and his colleagues (Report, 30 April) supports the message of successive reports by the Office of National Statistics: while longevity overall is improving, the longevity gap between the rich and poor is widening.

ONS data show that during 1995-97 the mortality rate for males in England, measured as number of deaths per 100,000, was 15.3 % higher than average in the most deprived areas. By 2008-2010 the rate was 17.6 % higher. This social gradient, which means that the poorer you are the more likely you are to become ill and die, applies to a range of illnesses including cerebrovascular disease and heart disease. One interesting anomaly is breast cancer, where the social gradient for mortality rates runs in the opposite direction.

It could be argued that poorer people are simply making unhealthy choices. However, longitudinal Whitehall studies found that only part of the social gradient in death rates from coronary heart disease in British civil servants could be explained by lifestyle factors. The authors concluded that socioeconomic inequality in itself was a major driver of health inequality. Major government-sponsored inquiries led by Black (1980), Acheson (1988) and Marmot (2010) have all made similar points.

The rise in inequality has continued under the coalition government. Furthermore, the recent figures on food bank use from the Trussell Trust suggest that absolute poverty is also growing. The New Policy Institute has also shown that child poverty is rising. If the extensive research we have available is correct, then there will surely be a widening health gap, both in terms of morbidity and mortality, in years to come. This inequity should not be a cause of sadness but anger, and a call to action.
*Jonathon O'Brien*
_Institute of Health and Society, University of Worcester_


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Protest policies, not the fact you lost. That's the key point. Those protesting "Tories out" are protesting against the Uk democratic process, a process which you use to justify your right to protest. Those who voted the tories in have just as much right to have the government they chose in power.
> 
> Reason why doesn't matter. Fact is that the rich are paying more. Reality says you can only raise how much you take before overall you start losing money being raked in as we live in a global economy. I understand life as a millionaire is great in Dubai and you don't have to pay UK taxes there if you are not a resident in the UK.
> 
> Any prospective leader will blame anybody if they think it will mean votes. Then again we have Nouska protesting the last labour government didn't get it wrong. Which is it?
> 
> Most millianaires have nothing to do with banks despite what some like to state. The mistake Miliband made was shifting to the left, forgetting that the majority of people are not poor and they aren't millionaires and bringing up promises where simple in/out figures weren't balanced.


Sorry, I have to go to work.
Will digest this and answer it later


----------



## noushka05

Colliebarmy said:


> Or even the top 16?
> 
> http://trending.report/richest-women/


Fancy you defending a benefit scrounger? lol Is it because shes rich?


----------



## noushka05

No wonder they're scrapping the Human Rights act! What a vile country we have become in five short years - and its set to get a whole lot worse 



*The government's claims that "we are all in it together"**have been shown by the Institute for Fiscal Studies** and other independent researchers to be empty. While the government claims to have cut £21bn from social security, far more has been given away to mainly better-off people by, for example, raising income tax allowances and reducing corporation tax. The increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20% hit people on low incomes the hardest. Disabled people have been treated particularly harshly, with cuts in their living standards of 19 times the average.

*


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> We are not all in this together, the wealthy elite are getting richer.


Rich will always get richer,. Someone who works + invests is going to get richer than someone who only works. Or are you saying people shouldn't work + invest as that leads to inequality? People shouldn't save as that also leads to inequality. What's the saying about it's easy to make money when you have money.
_
*


noushka05 said:



There are alternatives: for example, why not instead increase taxation progressively on the better-off (including ourselves) to protect the poor?

Click to expand...

*_Once again ignoring the fact that the Tories, not Labour have increased taxation in a manner which actually provided more income without forcing rich people out of the country and paying taxes elsewhere. Also we need to remember we are talking % of income not simply a set numeric figure so as income raises, so does the amount paid.



> But we are dismayed by the failure of the main political parties to take poverty seriously. From our poverty audit of the various manifestos, it is clear that none of the main parties is committed to addressing the real causes of poverty.


So if you believed in equality and the poor you shouldn't have voted and tried to persuade others to vote labour as neither main party were addressing poverty.



> The rise in inequality has continued under the coalition government. Furthermore, the recent figures on food bank use from the Trussell Trust suggest that absolute poverty is also growing.


Yet the Trussell Trust admits in small print that their claims that one million unique people used food banks in the past year is inaccurate. 'These are not all unique users,' it says. 'This is a measure of volume.' No matter what it's unacceptable but once again but shows that figures when politically motivated can't be trusted.

Right or wrong, nothing is to stop protests against policies and nobody is complaining about that. However the Tory party has been elected and the democratic rights of those who voted them in are just as important as those who didn't.


----------



## Muze

Wow... if I was despondent enough before.... i sure as hell am now after reading that.

So sad so many people that I actually respected (not you CB lol)... have been sucked in by the media etc.... so you are ok, what about everyone else? Or if is doesn't hurt you you don;t care?


----------



## Ang2

noushka05 said:


> .
> 
> Blimey you weren't wrong? No one defending the Tory party has batted at eyelid at the tax dodgers lol


And vice versa! Nobody defending Labour, bats an eyelid at benefit fraud and lazy, bone idle gits


----------



## Colliebarmy

Ang2 said:


> And vice versa! Nobody defending Labour, bats an eyelid at benefit fraud and lazy, bone idle gits


I like your style.....Bone idle foodbank users (it saves the giro for beer **** ganga and Sky TV)


----------



## MyMillie

Colliebarmy said:


> Former Armani model Slavica Ecclestone, became one of the richest women in Britain following her divorce from Bernie Ecclestone.
> 
> Her wealth is said to be £740million making her the 136th richest individual in the country.


And????? what the heck as that got to do with anything??? oh my goodness I just want to give up!! :Arghh


----------



## rona

Muze said:


> Wow... if I was despondent enough before.... i sure as hell am now after reading that.
> 
> So sad so many people that I actually respected (not you CB lol)... have been *sucked in by the media etc*.... so you are ok, what about everyone else? Or if is doesn't hurt you you don;t care?


Or seen enough with their own eyes to make them know just how many are screwing the system . That's from all sides mind


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> Rich will always get richer,. Someone who works + invests is going to get richer than someone who only works. *Or are you saying people shouldn't work + invest as that leads to inequality?* People shouldn't save as that also leads to inequality. What's the saying about it's easy to make money when you have money.
> 
> _
> Smoke & mirrors. No I'm not saying that & you know damn well I'm not.
> 
> _
> Once again ignoring the fact that the Tories, not Labour have increased taxation in a manner which actually provided more income without forcing rich people out of the country and paying taxes elsewhere. Also we need to remember we are talking % of income not simply a set numeric figure so as income raises, so does the amount paid.
> 
> _ You don't believe the IFS then? - that is a surprise. Not._
> 
> So if you believed in equality and the poor you shouldn't have voted and tried to persuade others to vote labour as neither main party were addressing poverty.
> 
> _Tell that to all the terrified sick & disabled people, the people living hand to mouth._
> 
> Yet the Trussell Trust admits in small print that their claims that one million unique people used food banks in the past year is inaccurate. 'These are not all unique users,' it says. 'This is a measure of volume.' No matter what it's unacceptable but once again but shows that figures when politically motivated can't be trusted.
> 
> Right or wrong, nothing is to stop protests against policies and nobody is complaining about that. However the Tory party has been elected and the democratic rights of those who voted them in are just as important as those who didn't.


Trussell Trust are just ONE of many food bank providers - that's right, god knows what the true figure is!. It is utterly shameful that so many people, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, are depending on food banks to survive!

(meme time)


----------



## Muze

I wonder what you all think is going to happen?

Do you really believe that all the 'scroungers' will suddenly find full time jobs and the benefits they would have received will go into your pockets?

There will always be people in need, there will always be people who cannot work for whatever reason.... these people will not just vanish when they are utterly destitute.

And no... I will not kill myself to make someone else's life easier ... ffs


----------



## Pointermum




----------



## rona

Muze said:


> I wonder what you all think is going to happen?
> 
> Do you really believe that all the 'scroungers' will suddenly find full time jobs and the benefits they would have received will go into your pockets?
> 
> There will always be people in need, there will always be people who cannot work for whatever reason.... these people will not just vanish when they are utterly destitute.
> 
> And no... I will not kill myself to make someone else's life easier ... ffs


No hopefully the money would go to those that really need it and not to prop up cheats and criminals


----------



## Ang2

Muze said:


> I wonder what you all think is going to happen?
> 
> Do you really believe that all the 'scroungers' will suddenly find full time jobs and the benefits they would have received will go into your pockets?
> 
> There will always be people in need, there will always be people who cannot work for whatever reason.... these people will not just vanish when they are utterly destitute.
> 
> And no... I will not kill myself to make someone else's life easier ... ffs


A bit OTT !


----------



## Colliebarmy

MyMillie said:


> And????? what the heck as that got to do with anything??? oh my goodness I just want to give up!! :Arghh


It relates to posts you obviously missed about QE being "The richest woman in the world".....shes not even the richest in the UK, and by a long way too


----------



## Colliebarmy

"Trussell Trust are just ONE of many food bank providers - that's right, god knows what the true figure is!. It is utterly shameful that so many people, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, are depending on food banks to survive!"

But how many stock up at a food bank to abuse the cash they are given by the benefits system?....

Ive collected 1 fare (taxi) from a food bank paying £10 to get home (then onto a realtives house) with a weeks shopping given to her, but shes had money for **** too....and before you howl, shes fit enough/able bodied and it wasnt a great distance


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Muze said:


> I wonder what you all think is going to happen?
> 
> Do you really believe that all the 'scroungers' will suddenly find full time jobs and the benefits they would have received will go into your pockets?
> 
> There will always be people in need, there will always be people who cannot work for whatever reason.... these people will not just vanish when they are utterly destitute.
> 
> And no... I will not kill myself to make someone else's life easier ... ffs


I don't know if you have read the whole thread (it is rather long and does go round in circles somewhat) but none of us are saying that the ill and disabled should not get benefits. What we are saying is that the unemployed should always be encouraged to seek work and that work should always pay more than benefits to avoid the trap of people not being able to afford (or wanting to afford) a drop in their living standards by going back to work. Who said we wanted their benefits in our pockets? we want to see benefit abuse cracked down on and benefits being targeted where they are needed most. The cycle of young girls getting pregnant and having more and more children that they cannot afford with an expectation that the tax payer will just keep on handing out more and more money to them has to be broken.


----------



## Ang2

How can you steal from a bin?!!!!! Judge sees sense!

*'How else could they manage?' Judge's mercy for bin-diving parents charged with stealing out-of-date food that Tesco had thrown out, to feed their two young children*

*Pair stole out-of-date food from bins because they couldn't afford to buy it*
*Paul and Kerry Barker's benefits had been stopped and they had no money*
*Mr Barker was a scaffolder until he fell and broke his back, preventing him from work, while Mrs Barker worked for a council until she got depression*
*Because pair can't afford to feed them their children live with grandparents*
By Keiligh Baker for MailOnline

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078150/Bin-diving-parents-caught-CCTV-stealing-date-food-Tesco-thrown-feed-two-young-children.html#ixzz3ZxL3Y73H 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## silvi

Colliebarmy said:


> But how many stock up at a food bank to abuse the cash they are given by the benefits system?....


Oh FFS!
Not content with going after so-called 'benefit scroungers' we are now going to demonize people going to foodbanks


----------



## Mulish

Colliebarmy said:


> "Trussell Trust are just ONE of many food bank providers - that's right, god knows what the true figure is!. It is utterly shameful that so many people, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, are depending on food banks to survive!"
> 
> But how many stock up at a food bank to abuse the cash they are given by the benefits system?....
> 
> Ive collected 1 fare (taxi) from a food bank paying £10 to get home (then onto a realtives house) with a weeks shopping given to her, but shes had money for **** too....and before you howl, shes fit enough/able bodied and it wasnt a great distance


I don't know, how many? I assume you have actual statistics to refer us all to rather than that one woman you were complaining about months ago.

And how do you know she was able bodied? Have you not heard of invisible disabilities? Just because someone can walk it doesn't mean they aren't disabled.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Colliebarmy said:


> "Trussell Trust are just ONE of many food bank providers - that's right, god knows what the true figure is!. It is utterly shameful that so many people, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, are depending on food banks to survive!"
> *
> But how many stock up at a food bank to abuse the cash they are given by the benefits system?....*
> 
> Ive collected 1 fare (taxi) from a food bank paying £10 to get home (then onto a realtives house) with a weeks shopping given to her, but shes had money for **** too....and before you howl, shes fit enough/able bodied and it wasnt a great distance


I think thats taking things a bit far CB. My understanding is you can't just turn up at a food bank and walk off with a weeks supply of food. I believe you have to be referred and the number of times you can use it is limited. A lot of people use them because they find themselves in unexpected situations - have a look at the Trussell Trust website for some examples and how to donate if anyone is interested.

http://www.trusselltrust.org/friends

They also run debt management courses and low cost cooking courses at some centres.


----------



## silvi

Okay. I'm back
(Just chaired an evening seminar on womens' suffrage would you believe )


Goblin said:


> Protest policies, not the fact you lost. That's the key point. Those protesting "Tories out" are protesting against the Uk democratic process, a process which you use to justify your right to protest. Those who voted the Tories in have just as much right to have the government they chose in power.


Yes, those who voted for the Tories of course have the right to have the Tories take charge as they won a commons majority.
But I would bet that those protesting 'Tories out' have many different reasons for wanting them out and different ways they hope to get them, or at least their policies, out.

Some, no doubt, will be anti-democracy; others will be anti-our particular system of democracy and perhaps calling for PR.

Others will be hoping that a range of protests and strikes will cause enough people to wake up and listen and protest themselves that the government will have to moderate the changes they are threatening to make (like the 'anti-poll tax' demonstrators hoped for under Thatcher).

Others will be hoping that protests and campaigns will highlight divergence within the Tory ranks that will lead to failure of the party to operate effectively.

And others will be hoping that sound and well-thought-out protests will make the Tories change their proposed plans - therefore the more extreme Tory policies will be 'out'.

and so on.....



Goblin said:


> Reason why doesn't matter. Fact is that the rich are paying more. Reality says you can only raise how much you take before overall you start losing money being raked in as we live in a global economy. I understand life as a millionaire is great in Dubai and you don't have to pay UK taxes there if you are not a resident in the UK.


I would say that reason actually does matter, at least if not within the global economy, it does to the general public.



Goblin said:


> Any prospective leader will blame anybody if they think it will mean votes. Then again we have Nouska protesting the last labour government didn't get it wrong. Which is it?


I can't speak for Noushka, but I don't remember her saying any such thing about the Blair government.
But I have yet to hear a Tory politician say that Thatcher got it wrong when it is becoming very apparent that she did.
Instead, we now have Cameron talking about emulating some of her policies....



Goblin said:


> Most millianaires have nothing to do with banks despite what some like to state. The mistake Miliband made was shifting to the left, forgetting that the majority of people are not poor and they aren't millionaires and bringing up promises where simple in/out figures weren't balanced.


I know that the Labour Party themselves are now debating whether they moved too far to the left, but, as someone who is left wing myself, I really fail to see it. If anything, Miliband's policies were not left wing enough and he didn't challenge austerity in particular.

I think that he actually lost working class votes because of his middle-of-the-road stance.
Although I voted for him and supported him, I said all along that he wasn't left enough for me, but that he was 'a much better deal than the Tories'. And I still stand by that statement.

But I wonder how many people who usually vote left of centre were not prepared to take the rather pragmatic point of view I did and instead felt that there was no one who actually cared about their point of view anymore. And thus refused to vote at all.


----------



## Ang2

Teresa May tells Islamic Extremists "The game is up!" as new laws are passed to close down establishments and hate preachers The previous 'we'll leave you alone so long as you stay within the law' no longer applies. Goodbye to the likes of Anjem Choudary!


----------



## noushka05

Ang2 said:


> And vice versa! Nobody defending Labour, bats an eyelid at benefit fraud and lazy, bone idle gits


Who is defending labour? :/



rona said:


> Or seen enough with their own eyes to make them know just how many are screwing the system . That's from all sides mind





Pointermum said:


>


I can back up my 'facts' meme's with references 



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know if you have read the whole thread (it is rather long and does go round in circles somewhat) but none of us are saying that the ill and disabled should not get benefits. What we are saying is that the unemployed should always be encouraged to seek work and that work should always pay more than benefits to avoid the trap of people not being able to afford (or wanting to afford) a drop in their living standards by going back to work. Who said we wanted their benefits in our pockets? we want to see benefit abuse cracked down on and benefits being targeted where they are needed most. The cycle of young girls getting pregnant and having more and more children that they cannot afford with an expectation that the tax payer will just keep on handing out more and more money to them has to be broken.





rona said:


> No hopefully the money would go to those that really need it and not to prop up cheats and criminals


A million using foodbanks, homelessness & poverty at an all time high, vulnerable people being sanctioned, thousands of sick & disabled dying/committing suicide because of benefit cuts. The statistics are there ( infact this is probably just the tip of the iceberg as the Tories refuse to disclose the latest data!) we KNOW millions of genuine people are suffering because of benefit changes. So for the sake of punishing the 'cheats & criminals', 'the young girls getting pregnant' - ask yourself if all this suffering on a colossal scale really worth it? The safety net of our welfare state is being ripped away FOR EVERYONE.

With billions more cuts to come, its going to get a whole lot worse for the most vulnerable in our society.

Ask yourself the real reason they want to take away our Human rights? They are not only breaching them for the disabled - https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2...un-inquiry-into-disability-rights-violations/

But for homelessness & god only knows what else - http://www.housingexcellence.co.uk/news/coalition-govt's-housing-record-slammed-breaching-human-right-secure-home

_The Government has breached British citizens' human rights by failing in its obligations to promote access to safe and affordable housing, according to a report to be submitted to the United Nations (UN)._

They are the most dangerous & deceitful set of sociopaths in modern history.

Interesting -

_The UK is the *third most unequal developed country* in the world and most disabled people live in poverty. The current policy is guaranteed to_ _increase inequality and to make extreme poverty even worse.

All of this may seem surprising given the UK government's claim that the cuts would be "fair" and that they have even provided "extra money" for social care. However it seems that many of the government's claims are either very misleading or utterly false.
_
*Many people do not know the real facts about the current welfare system:*


_Benefit fraud is very low - it is only *6% the level of tax fraud* and about 1% the level of tax evasion._
_Planned benefit cuts are *22* times the size of benefit fraud_
_*£17 billion* benefits go unclaimed each year because the system is unfair, stigmatising and too difficult to understand, this is 17 times more than the level of benefit fraud._
_It is the poorest 10% of families who pay the highest percentage of their overall income in taxes - *45%*_
_The real cost of benefits and pensions is very low, 86% is paid straight back to the government in taxes. The net cost of benefits after taxes is really only *£25 billion*._
_Most local government spending is ring-fenced by Whitehall (e.g. education) the 41% cut to local government must fall largely on social care, for social care is 60% of the funding that local government actually controls._
_The claim that there is extra social care funding is false and relies upon misleading information and statistical distortions._
_The report argues that the main reason for the unfairness of the cuts is that the current democratic and welfare system has a built-in bias towards protecting some services and for cutting others. The public have been persuaded that the NHS, pensions and education are *universal services* that benefit everybody; but they see benefits and social care as being for 'other people'.

This bias is highly dangerous, especially when politicians pander to it, and use the rhetoric of 'shirkers', 'scroungers' or 'cheats' to appeal to the prejudices of swing voters. A new level of honesty and self-discipline is required within our political elites.

Not only is this policy dangerously unfair it will be *ineffective*. Increased inequality and reduced social care will increase social crises, crime, institutionalisation and will increase the inefficiency of other public services, like the NHS. Benefits and social care are relatively efficient and effective at reducing need and strengthening communities.

The current economic crisis was created by unsustainable house price inflation which was certainly not caused by people in poverty or by disabled people. Nor did they benefit from this inflation in asset values. However they are now being made to foot the bill for the mistakes of others. None of this is necessary. Even if one were to accept the need for public expenditure cuts then effective salary control would have saved jobs and reduced inequality._

.

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/uk-becomes-the-first-country-to-face-a-un-inquiry-into-disability-rights-violations/

This is really what Austerity is -

[URL=http://s151.photobucket.com/user/JOANNE64_2007/media/JOANNE64_2007124/582254_556211774418740_1561779918_n_zps6nkzm1zh.jpg.html]


----------



## Changes

One Housing association has researched the true impact of the new benefit caps that research in January revealed every single three-bedroom home it has across 35 areas would become instantly unaffordable for families on full housing benefit due to the cap.

Where are these families going to go? 

Just because right now you can afford your living costs, does not mean that in the future you will be able to afford your living costs, if we let the Tories do this to the most vulnerable people there will be nothing stopping them doing this to you...


----------



## noushka05

Colliebarmy said:


> It relates to posts you obviously missed about QE being "The richest woman in the world".....shes not even the richest in the UK, and by a long way too


This bothers you ^^^ but you're perfectly happy for multi- millionaire?/ billionaire? to get benefits & tax breaks? Says a lot about your values (not that I didn't know already  ).


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> They are the most dangerous & deceitful set of sociopaths in modern history.


And yet *11,334,520* take the trouble to go and vote for them. Mostly sociopaths too?

Here's a thought. I haven't seen polls of the individual manifesto pledges but I doubt that there's much support for many of them. The introduction of he benefits cap at £26,000 was apparently the single most popular piece of government policy ever, or at least since polling began. But who supports the £12bn of cuts coming down the pike?

Nearly everybody I know, in the real world, votes Tory. As I do. But I don't know a single person who thinks that a further £12bn of welfare cuts is a sensible government priority. But it'll be in the queens speech for sure. Funnily enough, I don't know a single person who thinks that there should be a vote on fox hunting.

Funny world innit?

On a related note, very sad to see that Labour's most credible leadership candidate has stepped out of the race.


----------



## shetlandlover

Wow is this thread still going? 

I watched benefit street for the first time the other day and it reminded me of the type of area I was forced to grow up in. Out of the whole thing there was only 1 of them that purely deserved benefits...she was a full time carer for her son who has brain damage. 

One of the ladies on the program said "there's no one on this street that's on benefits for no reason". 

There was one lad who was and is fit enough to work, certainly fit enough to climb into his council flat from the balcony. Criminal record, court ect....if he had a job maybe he wouldn't be getting in trouble for stealing things. 

One of the girls I went to college with had a status on facebook complaining that her child benefits and her council flat were no longer "safe" because the tories got back in. When I left home I was homeless, I'd left home because of my mother being abusive. I went to the council at the time to see if they could help and they couldn't. because all their council properties had been rented out and many of these were for life. 

I partly don't believe a council property should be a life long home, I think they should be used when you need to get onto your feet. Once you're working, have a wage coming in ect move into rented housing, that way it free's up the council house for the next person who needs it.


----------



## DoodlesRule

My sister lives entirely on benefits and has done for many years, her eldest is severely disabled and she cares for her 24/7. Yes she was affected by the "bedroom tax" it was stressful at the time but she is much happier, living in a nicer area in a smaller house. All this talk of being destitute and living in poverty why are people in that situation, many people in low paid jobs get less then someone on benefits. Money is tight for her yes but she cuts her cloth and is not destitute or living in poverty, if they can't afford something they don't have it she doesn't run up debts buying stuff on credit


----------



## havoc

_I partly don't believe a council property should be a life long home_
I tend to agree with you there but I don't think any change should be retrospective and there would have to be some sort of exemption for protected workers in expensive areas like London.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Oh and forgot sister has never had to resort to a food bank even when she had all 6 children at home


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> And yet *11,334,520* take the trouble to go and vote for them. Mostly sociopaths too?
> 
> Here's a thought. I haven't seen polls of the individual manifesto pledges but I doubt that there's much support for many of them. The introduction of he benefits cap at £26,000 was apparently the single most popular piece of government policy ever, or at least since polling began. But who supports the £12bn of cuts coming down the pike?
> 
> Nearly everybody I know, in the real world, votes Tory. As I do. But I don't know a single person who thinks that a further £12bn of welfare cuts is a sensible government priority. But it'll be in the queens speech for sure. Funnily enough, I don't know a single person who thinks that there should be a vote on fox hunting.
> 
> Funny world innit?
> 
> On a related note, very sad to see that Labour's most credible leadership candidate has stepped out of the race.


I didnt say that - but to clarify I meant the Tory Government ( & just to be even more clear - that doesn't mean I mean all the tory mp's either.)

I assume most people vote for the party whos policies represent their priorities the most?. Obviously wildlife & the environment, social values & animal welfare in general are my priorities so the conservative party does nothing only destroy these things that matter the most to me. And this particular set of tory mps are the cruellest in living memory. Theres no doubt that many are sociopaths.


----------



## Happy Paws2

and now there will be fewer home, if they start selling housing assocation homes. (sorry spelling)


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> I didnt say that


Didn't say you did. Was asking your opinion. Mine, fwiw, is that large numbers of people voted Tory because they were scared of the alternative.


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> Didn't say you did. Was asking your opinion. Mine, fwiw, is that large numbers of people voted Tory because they were scared of the alternative.


Actually I totally agree & have said so in quite a few posts on here. The tories & their right wing press won the election with their SNP scaremongering. Now our poor wildlife & millions of people will reap the whirlwind.


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> Actually I totally agree & have said so in quite a few posts on here. The tories & their right wing press won the election with their SNP scaremongering. Now our poor wildlife & millions of people will reap the whirlwind.


Yet you do exactly the same scaremongering at the end of the day. Fact is both extremes need to change rich and poor, it's not one is right, the other is fine. The welfare state is broken when people choose it as a lifestyle choice and people are not able to escape even when they want to. You push for side taking when the majority are not going to. They'll support a welfare state which assists those in need. At the same time they will strive to enhance their own and their families lives by working and trying to better their position and will resent anyone who tries to prevent them doing so.


----------



## DoodlesRule

noushka05 said:


> Actually I totally agree & have said so in quite a few posts on here. The tories & their right wing press won the election with their SNP scaremongering. Now our poor wildlife & millions of people will reap the whirlwind.


And Labour lost the election with their lefty ideology, they don't listen and quite simply their ideals do not match the majority of the country. If you look at history Labour are never elected when they veer left


----------



## MoggyBaby

Satori said:


> On a related note, very sad to see that Labour's most credible leadership candidate has stepped out of the race.


I can only guess you are referring to Dan Jarvis. And it is indeed a pity he is not running - he would soon get them all into shape. Don't seem to be many contenders jumping for the role either at the moment.


----------



## silvi

DoodlesRule said:


> And Labour lost the election with their lefty ideology, they don't listen and quite simply their ideals do not match the majority of the country. If you look at history Labour are never elected when they veer left


One could take another view and say that Labour are never supported_ in the media_ when they take a more leftward stance, therefore they have much less chance of winning the election.

I could also suggest that, when it is deemed vital that the right wing media push for more Tory government, _whoever_ opposes them is portrayed in extremes, but when it is considered 'safe' to have a government other than a Tory one, the media attitude is a little different and less harsh on Tory opponents.

When Blair was actually supported by a large chunk of the media, not only was he turning Labour to the right, it was also a time when the Tory government was itself in a great deal of trouble and needed time to sort themselves out.


----------



## Jesthar

You know, it's one I've been pondering too - did the Conservatives actually really *win* the election, or did the rest of the major parties manage between them to *lose* it?

I think I'm leaning towards the latter conclusion at the moment - Labour contributed losing Scotland and a general lack of appeal on all fronts, the Lib Dems shot themselves in both feet at the start of the last five years with predictable results this time around, and UKIP likely scared quite a few people to voting Conservative in an effort to keep them out after some of the behaviours of their candidates in recent weeks.

On a lighter note (pun intended), there's been a meme doing the rounds of FB along the lines of Russell Brand said that if the Conservatives won by a majority he'd stick a firework where the sun doesn't shine and light it - anyone know if a) it's true, and b) if so, when the performance will be?


----------



## havoc

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Labour lost this election - helped in no small way by Nicola Sturgeon. I don't think it required any scaremongering at all for people to worry about the effect a weak Labour party in coalition with a strong SNP would have on the country. We can't know if that fear was irrational, we've chosen not to find out.


----------



## MoggyBaby

havoc said:


> *There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Labour lost this election - helped in no small way by Nicola Sturgeon. * I don't think it required any scaremongering at all for people to worry about the effect a weak Labour party in coalition with a strong SNP would have on the country. We can't know if that fear was irrational, we've chosen not to find out.


I don't think Nicola Sturgeon 'helped' Labour to lose - she is simply a stronger person and Scotland decided she would be better at looking after their interests than anyone in Westminster.

She was certainly more clued up than Ed Milliband as she knew that Labour would need the SNP to stand any chance of forming a government. Maybe if Milliband had been more focused and said he WOULD have been prepared to work with them, in his pre-election debates, he'd have gotten more votes as I know a lot of people who really liked her and said they'd have voted for her if they could.

I personally think his stance of repeatedly saying he would NOT work with the SNP was his downfall - this highlighted to people that he really was rather clueless about the chances he had of ever getting an overall majority and made him appear weak & out of touch.


----------



## havoc

_I don't think Nicola Sturgeon 'helped' Labour to lose - *she is simply a stronger person and Scotland decided she would be better at looking after their interests* than anyone in Westminster._
That's rather my point.


----------



## MoggyBaby

havoc said:


> _I don't think Nicola Sturgeon 'helped' Labour to lose - *she is simply a stronger person and Scotland decided she would be better at looking after their interests* than anyone in Westminster._
> That's rather my point.


So, by that argument, any English PM will only be interested in looking after England???


----------



## silvi

MoggyBaby said:


> So, by that argument, any English PM will only be interested in looking after England???


Right or wrong, I think there was definitely a perception that this would be the case.
But for many in England as well as Scotland it was a case even more narrow than that - that the Tories were mainly interested in a particular group of English people only and it certainly wasn't the poor and low paid, whatever side of Hadrian's Wall they live.


----------



## Mulish

MoggyBaby said:


> So, by that argument, any English PM will only be interested in looking after England???


Unfortunately most English PMs seem to be interested in looking after themselves, their careers and their friends. Getting one who was only interested in looking after England would actually be an upgrade 

I thought Nicola Sturgeon came across well in all of the public debates. She managed a level of warmth and conviction that was sadly lacking with Cameron, Miliband and even Clegg (who I sort of like despite myself). As this is an election that seems to have been won on fear over hope, I'm not sure Miliband saying he'd consider working with the SNP would've done him any favours, but certainly his continual denials that he'd even consider it rang sort of hollow to me (and I bought a lot of the rest of what he was saying - enough to vote for him).


----------



## havoc

_Right or wrong, I think there was definitely a perception that this would be the case_
I agree. The Scottish referendum happened too recently for it not to be the perception.


----------



## havoc

_So, by that argument, any English PM will only be interested in looking after England???_
Absolutely and that's partly why the English vote went the way it did just as the Scots voted for the party which would look after their interests.


----------



## MoggyBaby

havoc said:


> _So, by that argument, any English PM will only be interested in looking after England???_
> Absolutely and that's partly why the English vote went the way it did just as the Scots voted for the party which would look after their interests.


So, even though Cameron talks about a unified UK, and is - in title - Prime Minister *of the UK*, the actual fact is he's only going to bother looking after England. Well, if we're being REALLY honest, anywhere south of the Watford Gap and north of Brighton.

Which means he has already lied and he's only been back in the job 6 days!


----------



## silvi

MoggyBaby said:


> So, even though Cameron talks about a unified UK, and is - in title - Prime Minister *of the UK*, the actual fact is he's only going to bother looking after England. Well, if we're being REALLY honest, anywhere south of the Watford Gap and north of Brighton.
> 
> *Which means he has already lied and he's only been back in the job 6 days!*


Goes without saying, lol!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

I think there are plans for the north of England

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/political-battles-bring-more-powers-englands-north-102019825.html#xcrkAzm


----------



## MoggyBaby

rottiepointerhouse said:


> *I think there are plans for the north of England*
> 
> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/political-battles-bring-more-powers-englands-north-102019825.html#xcrkAzm


Selling it off to the Americans? Knowing Cameron & Osborne, it wouldn't surprise me!!!


----------



## Mulish

MoggyBaby said:


> Selling it off to the Americans? Knowing Cameron & Osborne, it wouldn't surprise me!!!


Ha, I wonder if Game of Thrones is actually just a very long and elaborate advertisement for the north? Winter is coming and the southerners are ignoring it, caught up in their political power plays. Everything hinges on controlling the north - and now you can for just $Xbillion payable in 10 easy installments to this totally legit offshore account!


----------



## MoggyBaby

Mulish said:


> Ha, I wonder if Game of Thrones is actually just a very long and elaborate advertisement for the north? Winter is coming and the southerners are ignoring it, caught up in their political power plays. Everything hinges on controlling the north - and now you can for just $Xbillion payable in 10 easy installments to this totally legit offshore account!


----------



## Changes

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed." 
This quotation is often attributed to Mein Kampf ...


----------



## Satori

MoggyBaby said:


> I can only guess you are referring to Dan Jarvis. And it is indeed a pity he is not running - he would soon get them all into shape. Don't seem to be many contenders jumping for the role either at the moment.


Yes. He seems a good guy. Timing not right for his family apparently.

There's an even better choice out there imo, though he just withdrew his membership of the Labour Party yesterday. Dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de _*dum dum.*_


----------



## havoc

_So, even though Cameron talks about a unified UK, and is - in title - Prime Minister *of the UK*, the actual fact is he's only going to bother looking after England_
No, Cameron is a committed unionist and very much wants the union to continue. He cares very much on that score but I don't think the electorate share his passion.


----------



## silvi

Satori said:


> Yes. He seems a good guy. Timing not right for his family apparently.
> 
> There's an even better choice out there imo, though he just withdrew his membership of the Labour Party yesterday. Dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de _*dum dum.*_


You have go to be joking!


----------



## rona

Changes said:


> "The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."
> This quotation is often attributed to Mein Kampf ...


Isn't that what the Germans are doing within the European union now?

I suppose I'm not allowed to say that!!


----------



## Changes

rona said:


> Isn't that what the Germans are doing within the European union now?
> 
> I suppose I'm not allowed to say that!!


A battle is under way over the Conservatives' plan to get the scrapping of the *Human Rights Act* into the government's first Queen's speech on 27 May, n
There isn't a battle, there are no reports on tv of mass demonstrations opposing the scrapping of the Human Rights Act! If we don't have any human rights how will we protect the rights of the animals, plants, trees, planet...


----------



## Ang2

Changes said:


> A battle is under way over the Conservatives' plan to get the scrapping of the *Human Rights Act* into the government's first Queen's speech on 27 May, n
> There isn't a battle, there are no reports on tv of mass demonstrations opposing the scrapping of the Human Rights Act! If we don't have any human rights how will we protect the rights of the animals, plants, trees, planet...


So, do you think we are going to be dragged into the streets and whipped? Its being replaced with a British Bill of Rights - you know, one that allows us to deport foreign rapists and murderers!


----------



## rona

Changes said:


> A battle is under way over the Conservatives' plan to get the scrapping of the *Human Rights Act* into the government's first Queen's speech on 27 May, n
> There isn't a battle, there are no reports on tv of mass demonstrations opposing the scrapping of the Human Rights Act! If we don't have any human rights how will we protect the rights of the animals, plants, trees, planet...


We had this conversation a few pages back


----------



## Changes

Ang2 said:


> So, do you think we are going to be dragged into the streets and whipped? Its being replaced with a British Bill of Rights - you know, one that allows us to deport foreign rapists and murderers!


Foreign Rapists and Murderers?

Talk to the Native American Indians, the African slaves, the Indians, the Aborigines, The Vietnamese, The Iraqis, The Afghanis, about the foreign rapist, murderers,theives...

Interestingly we don't call ourselves immigrants we came we saw the resources we killed, raped, murdered, stole the land, made our own laws and we called ourselves the good guys, Look at us coming over here civilizing you savages… Be rude not to! (Sarcasm and fury not a good combination seeing as though my blood pressure is sky high)

Your comments are educated, without question!

Just as a side point, do you know what all of these people have in common? They are not white... Their countries had more resources than our countries...

The main problem we have been letting the ruling classes get away with it for as long as any of us can remember... As a child we played cowboys and Indians, the Indians were always the savages, the cowboys were always the good guys, how as children did we know this! Because that is what we have been taught, and why we do not question is because we learnt our lessons well, we have a sense of superiority. History has made us proud…

I am wondering if You would allow them to take away our human rights, because they said having human rights means protecting rapists and murderers that are in our country, and we have to stop protecting these vile humans, to do this we need to scrap everyone's human rights and we are not showing you what we are replacing it with, but you trust us right?

That is insanity...


----------



## Changes

rona said:


> We had this conversation a few pages back


Sorry lovely, just can't keep up xx


----------



## havoc

_Talk to the Native American Indians, the African slaves, the Indians, the Aborigines, The Vietnamese, The Iraqis, The Afghanis, about the foreign rapist, murderers,theives..._
Why? What has that got to do with the current proposals?


----------



## Changes

havoc said:


> _Talk to the Native American Indians, the African slaves, the Indians, the Aborigines, The Vietnamese, The Iraqis, The Afghanis, about the foreign rapist, murderers,theives..._
> Why? What has that got to do with the current proposals?


Obviously nothing at all in your mind. The post I quoted said The foreign rapist and murderers,

In my mind
Why would we trust a regime to look after our human rights when historically they were the biggest advocates of murder, rape, theft, slavery, tourture, genocide..

They are not interested in taking away the human rights of rapists and murderers, they want to take human rights away from everyone, it's just been sexed up so that the people that don't question anything that these people do won't get it...

Today the official secrets act is being used to protect high profile paedophiles, the same people that are looking after our human rights...


----------



## Satori

One for the lefties, quite a good post from the Stepford Student that really made me think of this thread. 


*Dear Tory voter: I can call you a c**t if I want*

Just before the election, a friend of mine posted a status on Facebook (the audacity!) about why you shouldn't vote Conservative. It was angry, and conflated the desire to vote Tory with being neglectful. It was, as most of these statuses are, unremarkable in the fact that it declared a person's opinion, along with a few facts about the consequences of the last five years.

Cue the Tory tidal wave of righteous indignation. "I think it's a bit out of line." "We're all entitled to our opinions." How dare you point to how my political opinion might have personal and ethical implication! Leave me and my black lab in peace.

You might think that if you're voting Tory, you're voting for something objective and unemotional like economic policy (which, of course, can never combine with social policy). It's just as simple as that. You probably just believe your vote has nothing to do with pointless emotional engagement, because at the end of the day you just need to do what's best for the country in order to create a stable Britain. Those left-wingers calling you immoral, pathetic scum on social media are making unnecessary ad hominem attacks on you and your opinions, which are just as valid as theirs.

Except, here's the problem. When you see an expression of dislike towards you as a person because you voted for the Conservative Party, that is not a tantrum because you disagree with a lefty. It's because the things you are voting for - the policies - economic and social, make you directly complicit in something that, like an act such as kicking a puppy in the face because you can, is wrong. It is an emotional response, because when you look at the choice you made at this general election, you need to observe the effects that choice will have on individual people, and _empathise_.

This is not a weakness because it is not the f**king Victorian era and you are not in a boarding school with Jane Eyre. It is not clouding your vision to make decisions because as adults, we make decisions every day that involve our emotions, without fainting. In fact, if anyone's blind, it's probably a load of white, cis, middle class guys telling the world it's actually going to be all right, and that the Tories aren't neglecting those at the bottom. When have they ever seen what it's like at the bottom?

When I call you immoral, or a c**t, it's not because I'm angry you take a differing opinion to me. Nor is it just because I think the policies you agree in are bad just because they're Tory. Or because we've lost - if the Libdems had taken a majority (lol) I'd be annoyed, but I'd probably not call them immoral. It's because you believe that some abstract notion that "a strong economy" without any promise of an eventual redistribution is better than helping those who have nowhere to live, or learn, or to get help. It is _immoral_ to kick disabled people out of their houses because they have one extra bedroom, to cut housing benefits to the under 21s, to cut legal aid and the CAB so people actively can't seek legal advice, to have 96% of your party vote so LGBT couples can't adopt. Even though austerity doesn't work, the Tories historically haven't been too keen on changing their welfare policy at the best of times - see: strong economic periods in Tory rule, such as Thatcher era, when huge cuts were made to education, housing and the arts. It's selfish, and it pisses me off.

Have your opinion, but preferably don't have one that contributes to a poverty and inequality. So let's make this clear once and for all: I'm calling you a c**t, not because of some abstract tribalist anger at a your Tory vote, but because the policies you vote for make you a c**t.


----------



## Jonescat

Changes said:


> A battle is under way over the Conservatives' plan to get the scrapping of the *Human Rights Act* into the government's first Queen's speech on 27 May, n
> There isn't a battle, there are no reports on tv of mass demonstrations opposing the scrapping of the Human Rights Act! If we don't have any human rights how will we protect the rights of the animals, plants, trees, planet...


Not a battle but if anyone wants to make their feelings known 
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-human-rights?bucket=blast2

I am sure there is a petition somewhere for those that think the opposite.

Oh - and putting 2 stars in the middle of a word doesn't make it invisible - recognising the shapes of words are how we start to learn to read.


----------



## Changes

Jonescat said:


> Not a battle but if anyone wants to make their feelings known
> https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-human-rights?bucket=blast2
> 
> I am sure there is a petition somewhere for those that think the opposite.
> 
> Oh - and putting 2 stars in the middle of a word doesn't make it invisible - recognising the shapes of words are how we start to learn to read.




Ah you mean someone else using the word S****horpe except with stars xx


----------



## havoc

_Obviously nothing at all in your mind. The post I quoted said The foreign rapist and murderers,_
You're right. In my mind there is no connection between historical expansion and current home policy. This doesn't mean I agree with the proposals. I do think there's plenty of relevant argument against them.


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think there are plans for the north of England
> 
> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/political-battles-bring-more-powers-englands-north-102019825.html#xcrkAzm


Us Northerners have got plans of our own - we're leaving you!  http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/thousands-call-north-england-become-9248178?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+menews+(Manchester+Evening+News+-+RSS+Feed)

Us up't north have waaaay more in common with our Scottish brethren than the rest of England lol We share the same values & the Tories have never represented either of us. So we've been begging- #TakeUsWithYouScotland. It was trending on twitter last night & the positive responses from the Scottish tweeters was awesome, urging us came and build a compassionate society together.



havoc said:


> _So, even though Cameron talks about a unified UK, and is - in title - Prime Minister *of the UK*, the actual fact is he's only going to bother looking after England_
> No, Cameron is a committed unionist and very much wants the union to continue. He cares very much on that score but I don't think the electorate share his passion.


Cameron doesn't give a to$$ about the Scottish people & they know it. No wonder they cant wait to break free.

This by David Schneider made me laugh. Bang on lol

Sept 2014: "Stay with us, Scotland. We love you"
7 May: "Scotland is basically Mordor"
8 May: "Play with us, Scotland. We love you"



Goblin said:


> Yet you do exactly the same scaremongering at the end of the day. Fact is both extremes need to change rich and poor, it's not one is right, the other is fine. The welfare state is broken when people choose it as a lifestyle choice and people are not able to escape even when they want to. You push for side taking when the majority are not going to. They'll support a welfare state which assists those in need. At the same time they will strive to enhance their own and their families lives by working and trying to better their position and will resent anyone who tries to prevent them doing so.


Extremist Lefty Scum (that's me)


----------



## cheekyscrip

Scottish contingent will oppose it...or else..
They will threat to walk out..
No worries then


----------



## noushka05

cheekyscrip said:


> Scottish contingent will oppose it...or else..
> They will threat to walk out..
> No worries then


They want independence & who could blame them? look no further than some of the posts on here. Good luck to them, Scotland has hope of something great.


----------



## Ang2

Oh, the irony 

*Miliband lost because 3million 'lazy' Labour supporters didn't bother to vote, says pollster IpsosMORI*

*Polls before polling day suggested two main parties were neck and neck*
*But Conservatives won 37% of the vote, well ahead of Labour's 30%*
*Inquiry has been launched into what went wrong with polling industry*
*Questions raised about 'shy Tories' not saying they would back Cameron*
By Matt Chorley, Political Editor for MailOnline

Published: 11:38, 13 May 2015 | Updated: 15:38, 13 May 2015

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079649/Miliband-lost-3million-lazy-Labour-supporters-didn-t-bother-vote-says-pollster-IpsosMORI.html#ixzz3a35JEE7h 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## noushka05

Ang2 said:


> So, do you think we are going to be dragged into the streets and whipped? Its being replaced with a British Bill of Rights - you know, one that allows us to deport foreign rapists and murderers!


Please don't believe what the government are saying Ang. The HRA protects all of us. As Marcus Chown has just said -_ Painting the human rights act, which Britain largely created, as evil is evil. That the world is seeing this makes me ashamed to be British.

*http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ael-gove-repeal-myth-busting?CMP=share_btn_tw*_

*The arguments against the Human Rights Act are coming. They will be false*
As Michael Gove prepares his attempt to repeal this fundamental act, here's some myth-busting about what it is, and how it works

In the aftermath of the second world war, nations came together to say "never again". They established the United Nations and agreed a simple set of universal standards of decency for mankind to cling to: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards were intended to protect the individual from the state, to uphold the rights of minorities and to provide support for the vulnerable.

The idea was simple; these standards would first be enshrined in regional treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and then be given legal effect in every country. In the UK this was achieved when Labour enacted theHuman Rights Act(HRA) in 1998.

The incoming Tory government now intends tostrip our people of these universal rights by repealing the HRA. Michael Gove has been appointed as the new justice secretary to lead the assault. In a week when we celebrate VE Day, the irony should not be lost. British politicians, many of them Tory, participated in the drafting of the ECHR in Whitehall because they believed that they were drafting an instrument to reflect the values that we in this country took for granted and which, they thought, vindicated our military triumph.

Gove may try another tack, arguing that the Tories are not against human rights at all, but simply want to keep those pesky judges in the European court at bay. But this argument also unravels quickly. The rights in the ECHR are very simple. They include the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country's education system; and, to top things off, the right not to be discriminated against. Which of these rights would you not want? One of the reasons the much-vaunted Tory "British bill of rights" has never seen the light of day is because any proposal that does not match these basic ECHR rights will be torn to shreds.

That only leaves Gove with the shallow argument that our courts are shackled because they are bound to follow the decisions of the European court of human rights. But that argument runs into two fundamental problems. First, the HRA only obliges our courts to "take into account" judgments of the European court; they are not bound by them. Second, it is not the HRA that obliges the UK to respond to the judgments of the European court. It is Article 46(1) of the ECHR itself.

Article 46 states that: "The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties." The UK signed up to that international obligation when it signed the ECHR in the 1950s. Repealing the HRA would have no effect whatsoever on the UK's obligations under Article 46. The only way for the Tories to achieve what they want is for the UK to pull out of the ECHR and, as a consequence, out of the Council of Europe.

*That would leave the UK outside the family of nations upholding universal human rights and would hugely diminish our reputation abroad. It would also widen the fracture in our own politics evidenced by last week's elections. When the bill of rights commission set up by the coalition government in 2012 went to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to find out what they thought of the HRA, they returned to London with a very blunt message ringing in their ears: the plan to repeal the HRA and adopt a British bill of rights is a ridiculous metropolitan Tory idea that should be put back in the box.

A proposal that deprives people of their rights, divides nations abroad and divides nations at home is a grossly disproportionate reaction to one or two adverse rulings from Strasbourg. It also cuts across the basic fairness, dignity and equality that all nations committed to nearly 70 years ago.*
_
_


----------



## cheekyscrip

noushka05 said:


> They want independence & who could blame them? look no further than some of the posts on here. Good luck to them, Scotland has hope of something great.


And then everyone from the border down to Humber bridge will join them...and who can blame them?.

I have a great respect for Scots...
Scots are wise folk. No wasters.


----------



## negative creep

noushka05 said:


> They want independence & who could blame them?


The referendum a few months back suggests others


----------



## silvi

negative creep said:


> The referendum a few months back suggests others


I think that a referendum now would give a very different result.


----------



## cheekyscrip

negative creep said:


> The referendum a few months back suggests others


But first they will get even......
The parlament sessions will be lively I bet.
But I suggest subtitles...


----------



## noushka05

cheekyscrip said:


> And then everyone from the border down to Humber bridge will join them...and who can blame them?.
> 
> I have a great respect for Scots...
> Scots are wise folk. No wasters.


Me too Cheeky. They are salt of the earth  x


----------



## silvi

noushka05 said:


> Us up't north have waaaay more in common with our Scottish brethren than the rest of England lol


But to be fair, there are parts of England further South that have a lot in common with Scotland too, particularly in terms of being forced deeper into poverty and housing and education deprivation under the last Government.
The difference is that the long deprivation has led to political apathy rather than confidence in fighting back - hence the map of the South is almost completely blue (apart from good old Brighton, lol!).
Basically, people down here need a shot of whatever it is that makes the Scottish people confident that their vote counts.


----------



## bearcub

silvi said:


> I think that a referendum now would give a very different result.


Why?

Less Scots voted SNP last week than yes to independence last year.


----------



## silvi

bearcub said:


> Why?
> 
> Less Scots voted SNP last week than yes to independence last year.


Well, for a start, you had to be 18 to vote in the general election, rather than 16 as in the Independence vote, so a significant proportion of voters was lost immediately.
But I would imagine that there was strong hope of an agreement between the SNP and Labour, but now that hasn't happened feelings will harden.


----------



## cheekyscrip

Must say..I like the idea of Labour supporters..too lazy to vote...maybe same ones who are too lazy to work?
For once that may not pay off...


And "shy or secret tories"...who come out of the closet only in privacy of election booth...but asked by pollsters will swear they are Lab or Green at worst!...


----------



## rona

cheekyscrip said:


> Must say..I like the idea of Labour supporters..too lazy to vote...maybe same ones who are too lazy to work?


WOAH..................Cheeky


----------



## cheekyscrip

rona said:


> WOAH..................Cheeky


Just joking..but stoooopid Lumia gives no smilies..
But difficult to assume benefit scroungers voting tories?...can imagine they just cannot be bothered...but if asked their opinion by pollsters..?

Just found this bit about "lazy Labour" and "shy Tories" amusing...though there might be something in it..
Imagine Tory Anonymous Support Groups..eleven steps...
" Tori and proud" merchandise..
Agony aunts inundated with letters from worried parents who found The Times under child's bed...


----------



## havoc

_They want independence & who could blame them? look no further than some of the posts on here. Good luck to them, Scotland has hope of something great.
Click to expand...
And then everyone from the border down to Humber bridge will join them
_
Well I've always maintained that if the Scots truly wanted independence they'd have gone for a UK wide referendum.


----------



## Changes

The hashtag #takeuswithyouscotland is gaining momentum, the north of England, Liverpool, Manchester etc are shouting to join Scotland in a breakaway from England, _"The needs and challenges of the north cannot be understood by the endless parade of old Etonions lining the front benches of the House of Commons. The north of England should join the newly independent Scotland and regain control over its own destiny."_


----------



## silvi

cheekyscrip said:


> Must say..I like the idea of Labour supporters..too lazy to vote...maybe same ones who are too lazy to work?


Since when did apathy mean the same as laziness?


cheekyscrip said:


> Just joking...


Maybe so, but I don't find it that funny that people feel so helpless in the face of the system and the situation in which they find themselves.

But I guess you might say that thinking of more austerity to come has given me a sense of humour failure........


----------



## patsymatsy

havoc said:


> Well I've always maintained that if the Scots truly wanted independence they'd have gone for a UK wide referendum.


David Cameron decided the terms of our Referendum. He had to offer us something, due to the SNP getting a majority government in our local elections (Scottish Parliament).

Alex Salmond wanted there to be THREE options on the Ballot Paper: YES, NO and DEVO MAX (devo max means we would have stayed part of the UK but have FULL financial independence). Cameron said YES or NO only.

Alex didn't want Indy Referendum as quickly as we got it (he wanted to wait a couple of years to prepare the Scottish people, and to dispel fears). Cameron said "have it in 2015 or not at all".

Alex took it, rather than it being kicked into the long grass forever.

Cameron took a gamble, and won. He knew the SNP would be hard pushed to campaign successfully in a short period of time. BUT the SNP did manage to turn a 22% of Scots wanting Indy, to almost 52% the week BEFORE the vote. Westminster was terrified that Alex had achieved the impossible, and came up to Scotland in a panic and offered us "The Vow" (now known as The Smith Commission) and more powers if we voted NO. Some Scots fell for the lie, hence the result of just 45%.

Needless to say The Smith Commission has offered us barely any new powers, hence the surge to SNP during the GE15.

Westminster should know better than mess with us Scots, we cleared out the Tories from Scotland, and now we have cleared out Labour due to them supporting the NO vote and lie (The Vow).

Never mess with the Scots, we are a canny bunch, is the message we send. Emphatically! Fool us once.....

People say us Scots hate the English, we don't. We just don't like Westminster parties we as a Nation don't vote for ruling over us, it is not democratic, is it? We just want to run our own affairs, and be in charge of our own finances. Our politics vary so much from the South of England, we are Socialists, we look after each other ( a social conscious) and anti-nuclear weapons. Hence Independence is the only way we can achieve that, as Cameron denied us Devo Max on the ballot paper.... I bet he regrets that decision now 

Today in the Scottish Parliament, Nicola Sturgeon once again extended her hand to Labour, to form a progressive alliance with other small parties, to try and overturn any proposals/policies/cuts that The Conservatives are going to try and put through parliament (Westminster). Again she was sniggered at.... :'( Nicola cares just as much about the poor in England being saved from the cuts, as she does the Scottish poor.

I said I wasn't going to come back to this thread due to all the mocking and hate towards the Scots and myself. I beg you do not mock what you don't fully understand. I posted the above to put straight all of the false facts and lack of understanding posted on this thread about the Referendum.

And to clear up the confusion:

50% voted SNP in the GE15... but the vote was split over 4 political parties, and the 16-18 years old were not allowed to vote like they could in Indy (most of the NO's were pensioners who had been told they would loose their pensions if Scotland went Indy- lies spread by the Unionist parties). Therefore gaining 50% with the option of 3 other parties is an amazing result.

The referendum was just two options, YES or NO, therefore less to split the vote. 45% to YES, 55% to NO.

Therefore, when you take into consideration the above stats, during GE15 there was an INCREASE in the want for Independence, from last Septembers vote.   Fool us once, remember....

Imo, NO won due to dirty tactics (scaring pensioners, who the majority don't have social media to refer to and to dispel lies they were being fed. Because pensioners mainly rely on bias newspapers and BBC news).... The last minute VOW (days before the vote) that Ed, David and Nick signed, to give us more powers if we voted NO, was enough to persuade some who perhaps were on the fence. If you thought the tactics were dirty during GE15, you would have been appalled at the dirty tactics played by Labour, Lib Dem and Tories during Indy, blinking shocking!

Lets all hope and pray the cuts won't be as deep as Cameron and Osborne both want, due to pressure from SNP, the other opposition parties and the public demonstrations happening as we speak (bless them).

Lets make the Tories too "feart" (scared) to cut as deep as they want to. PEOPLE POWER! x


----------



## patsymatsy

havoc said:


> _So, even though Cameron talks about a unified UK, and is - in title - Prime Minister *of the UK*, the actual fact is he's only going to bother looking after England_
> No, Cameron is a committed unionist and very much wants the union to continue. He cares very much on that score but I don't think the electorate share his passion.


Cameron's only "passion" is the continuation of the theft of Scotland's pockets. It is ironic that Cameron referred to Alex as a pickpocket, the exact opposite is true.

Cameron and his government pickpocket the poor, to give to the rich (ad infinitum ). He also pickpockets Scotland's wealth!

Alex and now Nicola, have mitigated the effects of most of the welfare changes (bedroom tax, council tax to name just two) introduced by the Tories since 2010. The Scottish Parliament cares for it's citizens! Nobody here pays The Bedroom Tax, though legally it still exists in Scotland (as Westminster is in charge of ALL welfare policies for the whole of the UK), but the Scottish Parliament pays the Bedroom Tax to the councils, instead of the tenants.

MMMMMmmmm remind me again, who shows passion and compassion for the people of Scotland?


----------



## new westie owner

noushka05 said:


> Us Northerners have got plans of our own - we're leaving you!  http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/thousands-call-north-england-become-9248178?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+menews+(Manchester+Evening+News+-+RSS+Feed)
> 
> Us up't north have waaaay more in common with our Scottish brethren than the rest of England lol We share the same values & the Tories have never represented either of us. So we've been begging- #TakeUsWithYouScotland. It was trending on twitter last night & the positive responses from the Scottish tweeters was awesome, urging us came and build a compassionate society together.
> 
> Cameron doesn't give a to$$ about the Scottish people & they know it. No wonder they cant wait to break free.
> 
> This by David Schneider made me laugh. Bang on lol
> 
> Sept 2014: "Stay with us, Scotland. We love you"
> 7 May: "Scotland is basically Mordor"
> 8 May: "Play with us, Scotland. We love you"
> 
> Extremist Lefty Scum (that's me)


It was all over Twitter #takeuswithyouscotland


----------



## Lurcherlad

havoc said:


> _I partly don't believe a council property should be a life long home_
> I tend to agree with you there but I don't think any change should be retrospective and there would have to be some sort of exemption for protected workers in expensive areas like London.


Just as homeowners may have to downsize when they retire, to make ends meet and boost their pensions. I know we will probably have to.


----------



## Lurcherlad

MoggyBaby said:


> So, by that argument, any English PM will only be interested in looking after England???


If they are anti-unionist, yes. If they are pro union, then probably not. Nicola Sturgeon has made it clear where her interests lie and all the SNP people that I listened to in the run up to the election were very careful how they worded their responses to the question of how they would contribute within Westminster.


----------



## shetlandlover

I have just read this and it reminded me of this thread so thought I'd share it.

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


----------



## rona

shetlandlover said:


> I have just read this and it reminded me of this thread so thought I'd share it.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hinging-why-the-Left-are-such-bad-losers.html


Excellent article, I particularly like this bit
"When you live your life on Twitter and Facebook, and are only friends with like minded people on Twitter and Facebook, you are not living in the real world."

It seems to be where half of these things start


----------



## Goblin

shetlandlover said:


> I have just read this and it reminded me of this thread


Can't be true. Apparently only the guardian is trustworthy and can be used.


----------



## patsymatsy

shetlandlover said:


> I have just read this and it reminded me of this thread so thought I'd share it.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hinging-why-the-Left-are-such-bad-losers.html


A nice sound bite, but a bit of perspective is spoken below....

Quote "If you're well off you'll be OK no matter who wins. If you're not you're in real trouble and much more motivated to get out and say something about it (especially when your side lost because of baseless negative fear mongering manufactured to take advantage of ignorant people's insecurities and misconceptions)".

The well off never need to riot! Because they will always be able to EAT, regardless of what party wins the election.


----------



## rona

patsymatsy said:


> A nice sound bite, but a bit of perspective is spoken below....
> 
> Quote "If you're well off you'll be OK no matter who wins. If you're not you're in real trouble and much more motivated to get out and say something about it (especially when your side lost because of baseless negative fear mongering manufactured to take advantage of ignorant people's insecurities and misconceptions)".
> 
> The well off never need to riot! Because they will always be able to EAT, regardless of what party wins the election.


So everyone that vote conservative are well off?


----------



## shetlandlover

rona said:


> So everyone that vote conservative are well off?


No one told me that....when can I expect my windfall in the post? :Greedy


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> So everyone that vote conservative are well off?


*Well if they are not yet, they should be. They say the devil looks after his own. *


----------



## patsymatsy

rona said:


> So everyone that vote conservative are well off?


It is a fundamental fact that the Conservative party policies and ethos favour the rich, always have always will. They think the working classes are "plebs", and smirk and chuckle in Parliament when they announce changes that will cripple the poor, even more.

I find it simply mind blowing that anyone who is working class votes Tory.... I say again, mind blowing! It just beggars belief...

Propaganda spouted by the media seems to have worked.... they have brainwashed people into HATING the unemployed, disabled, and immigrants by putting the blame on those groups for the countries ills (a lie).

It is a distraction technique called "distract them with the left hand, and they won't notice what is happening with the right"!

Also a technique called "divide and conquer". They have successfully divided the working class vote, by feeding into the human emotion of envy, with media misinformation.

They have people thinking all the unemployed are living it up, and get more money than people who work. This is bullshit! A single person on JSA gets £72 a week in their hand (rent and council tax is paid), or £54 a week if under 24 years old.

I couldn't live off £72 a week long term, could you? I certainly do not grudge anyone their JSA, it is a pittance, and must be a miserable existence.

Only the extremely disabled, or people with loads of children get enough benefit to live on, which is the exception rather than the rule.

Bitterness and envy are the human emotions the Tories have successfully tapped into, to get the working man voting Conservative.

We have a situation now where anyone with a job and mortgage thinks they are middle class ha ha! And therefore vote Tory!


----------



## StormyThai

shetlandlover said:


> No one told me that....when can I expect my windfall in the post? :Greedy


You may not be rich but come on, you're not exactly "hard up" now are you lol


----------



## shetlandlover

StormyThai said:


> You may not be rich but come on, you're not exactly "hard up" now are you lol


Hahaha if only...


----------



## havoc

_Bitterness and envy are the human emotions the Tories have successfully tapped into, to get the working man voting Conservative._
Surely bitterness and envy would cause the working man to vote anything but Conservative.


----------



## StormyThai

shetlandlover said:


> Hahaha if only...


You have a roof over your head and you have a business...that in itself is much, much more than others have the pleasure of owning 
As I said, I am not saying you are rich, but you are not struggling


----------



## cheekyscrip

silvi said:


> Since when did apathy mean the same as laziness?
> 
> Maybe so, but I don't find it that funny that people feel so helpless in the face of the system and the situation in which they find themselves.
> 
> But I guess you might say that thinking of more austerity to come has given me a sense of humour failure........


maybe the apathy comes from labour being...not much different from Tories -/
Sorry, but Red Ed is not the most caring of brothers...neither you can say Blairs are above money grabbing....and as to fiddling expenses...

sorry ,if Labour does not stand for that they used to? In this I must agree with porps:Jawdrop! Just more of the same...so Tories care just about themselves...and Labour?

It seems that the most genuine was SNP...more than just another row of guys in expensive suits...Election was decide by the undecided!
Look ,even here about 8 % were undecided..in pf polls!

I do not find election results amusing..but theories experts put trying to explain it!
Sorry if somewhat offended you, no intention there!


----------



## patsymatsy

havoc said:


> Surely bitterness and envy would cause the working man to vote anything but Conservative.


Yes, technically/traditionally. But the Tories with the media's help, have successfully over the last 10 years managed to pit the working and poor classes against each other. Traditionally Labour supporters are now voting Conservative, under the misconception that the Conservatives will "sort out all the lazy good for nothing unemployed". They have created a false enemy! You better pray none of you lose your job through ill health or redundancy, because the welfare safety net is being eroded.

For the grace of god walk I.... but the tides of misfortune can roll in for anyone! Bare that in mind as you vote Tory!


----------



## MoggyBaby

patsymatsy said:


> We have a situation now where anyone with a job and mortgage thinks they are middle class ha ha! And therefore vote Tory!


Not everyone.  Fortunately, some people do still vote with their conscience rather than for themselves. Unfortunately, now that we live in such a "Me, Me, Me" and "Now, Now, Now" society, those with a conscience are becoming few and far between.

The irony is that if we spent more time caring about others, others would spend more time caring about us and that would mean, collectively, a far better caring & structured environment.


----------



## havoc

_Traditionally Labour supporters are now voting Conservative, under the misconception that the Conservatives with "sort out all the lazy good for nothing unemployed"._
You can't possibly decide you know what every Tory voter is thinking or what they thought was the best use of their vote in each constituency.


----------



## JANICE199

patsymatsy said:


> I
> 
> We have a situation now where anyone with a job and mortgage thinks they are middle class ha ha! And therefore vote Tory!


*The best laugh is, there is no middle class in this country. Just wanna be's that don't fit in any where.*


----------



## patsymatsy

David Cameron during the leaders debates was challenged by an audience member about sanctions, and cited the case of an unemployed diabetic man who died after his benefits were sanctioned. He had no food in the house, no electricity in the meter to keep his Insulin cool in the fridge, and as you know a diabetic must eat regularly (blood sugar levels) or they go into a diabetic coma.

Mr Cameron's reply verbatim "the unemployed need motivated". No sorry uttered that this man died due to sanctions, nothing.... just that "the unemployed need motivated" therefore sanctions are a good thing.

Personally, I think this was the single most revealing thing David said during this election!!!

A bit like what they did centuries ago, put the executed people's heads on sticks, to serve as a warning to everyone else... controlling the people via fear.

Oh, and one less pleb to feed off the system old chap, eh?! Chuckle chuckle!


----------



## shetlandlover

StormyThai said:


> You have a roof over your head and you have a business...that in itself is much, much more than others have the pleasure of owning
> As I said, I am not saying you are rich, but you are not struggling


I'm in a lot of debt caused by starting up my own business. Maybe one day I'll have money but at the moment I'm not even taking a wage. (every penny is going to the business)


----------



## patsymatsy

havoc said:


> You can't possibly decide you know what every Tory voter is thinking or what they thought was the best use of their vote in each constituency.


Okay I will give you that one Havoc, maybe not every Tory voter. But it is one of the MAIN reasons given by MANY on this thread. Which supports/bares out my reasoning on the matter, I think.  Working class, turning on the unemployed and immigrants...


----------



## havoc

Many traditionally Labour voters defected to UKIP. That's truly frightening and I suspect a reason others chose to use their vote the way they did. Is it scaremongering to voice and act on those worries? It could be. UKIP could be the most caring, inclusive party but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.............................


----------



## cheekyscrip

Maybe Labour party has to have good look in the mirror?

You might blame everybody round..
Press, closet Tories, Scots or Ukip...or system...

Truth is..Ed Miliband as a beacon of light?...not a power hungry raw ambition chap who will trample over his brother in race to leadership!

Blairs..
Remember Cherie.
Most selfless first lady..
And little matter of weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Satori

rona said:


> Excellent article, I particularly like this bit
> "When you live your life on Twitter and Facebook, and are only friends with like minded people on Twitter and Facebook, you are not living in the real world."
> 
> It seems to be where half of these things start


Indeed, and that's why they are nothing to worry about. It just seems that there are more loonies nowadays because they have the platform of social media. S/he who, years past, would have been the guy railing at invisible passers-bye on the street or the 'nutter on the bus' now has a computer and Facebook. Good fun but nothing to be taken too seriously. Most real people are quite a bit more balanced methinks.


----------



## StormyThai

shetlandlover said:


> I'm in a lot of debt caused by starting up my own business. Maybe one day I'll have money but at the moment I'm not even taking a wage. (every penny is going to the business)


You're missing the point.
The fact you can even think of starting a business (debt or not), and you have a roof over your head means that you are better off than many..not rich, not well off, but a hell of a lot better off than many.


----------



## Goblin

patsymatsy said:


> Propaganda spouted by the media seems to have worked.... they have brainwashed people


Can say the same about labour supporters. It's not media in a lot of cases, it's life and personal experiences. According to you they aren't important or aren't valid.


----------



## Elles

If all the slightly better off than many voted tory, it'd be a landslide. Most people are slightly better off than many.

When talking about unemployed getting more money than the employed, it's so often a family of 10+ (unemployed) being compared to a single person on minimum wage (employed). Given that the unemployed family don't lose all their benefits if they do go to work and earn less or the same as their benefits, the family of 10 would be slightly better off working than not, which is why many of them do work. If I had 8+ kids, I'd rather be out at work too.  For some people slightly better off isn't better off enough for the hassle of getting and keeping a job and having to go to work every day. I don't blame them. If it's what everyone else around them is doing and they can get a few extra pennies cash in hand, or by other means, why wouldn't they? If everyone who actually wanted a job could get one, there probably wouldn't be much left for those who don't anyway and we'd still be paying out the same as we are now.

Fraud, including tax evasion first, then worry about people who don't have a work ethic and how to motivate and educate them.

In the meantime, pay the disabled, the elderly and carers and worry about those who are lying later. Better the guilty go free than one innocent man is hanged for a crime he didn't commit.

I don't actually know any disabled people personally and thinking about it, I don't know any unemployed either, so I'm not even ranting on behalf of anyone I know. :Jawdrop


----------



## Jonescat

JANICE199 said:


> *The best laugh is, there is no middle class in this country. Just wanna be's that don't fit in any where.*


I don't understand this - what definition of middle class are you thinking of?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

So if you voted Tory you are rich, you are selfish and you don't care about anyone but yourself  oh and not forgetting you are brain washed :Yawn:Yawn

How do any of you know what we do for other people? How many labour voters on here are homeless? how many are starving? how many can't afford to feed their children or their pets? or don't have fancy TV's/computers/I phones/cameras? By definition then we are all better off than some. So is it OK if I come and take your possessions to give to someone worse off than you? Is it OK if I move a homeless person into your spare room as you don't need it? Lets not start pointing the finger because none of us are perfect whoever we vote for. 

Answer me this question that puzzles me please. If life is so bad in this country why do so many people want to come here? If we believed some of you we would believe the bodies are piling up in the streets (like they did in the Winter of Discontent under a labour government) the NHS is no longer open for business (does that mean there won't be any more health tourists then?) and we are all doomed. 

Interesting reading the take of some of the prospective leadership candidates which don't really tally with many of the viewpoints on here

Yvette Cooper "Labour lost the election because if failed to convince voters it had the answers to match up with their ambitions. Labour needs to be bigger in its appeal, bolder in its ambitions and brighter about the future"

Andy Burnham "The party that I love has lost its emotional connection with millions of people. The way to get that back can't possibly be to choose one group of voters over another".

Chuka Umunna (the privately educated, savile row suited, lives in a posh house in London paid for from the family trust fund left winger who once asked a social networking site how to avoid "trash" on a night out) "We cannot have a message that anybody is too rich or too poor". 

If you want to win back some of the middle ground you have to stop preaching doom and gloom and attacking people who voted differently to you. You won't win people over to your way by telling them they are selfish or were brain washed.


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> Excellent article, I particularly like this bit
> "When you live your life on Twitter and Facebook, and are only friends with like minded people on Twitter and Facebook, you are not living in the real world."
> 
> It seems to be where half of these things start


I can't speak for other 'lefties', but I use Twitter for business contacts and promotion (it's better for me than Linked In) and Facebook for family and a few friends.
Yes, I am going to share tweets and FB political posts that I like, along with 'funny' tweets, nice photo tweets, and a lot on animal welfare; and those of my contacts who are like-minded are going to share them also, but I would say that in both cases, some of my contacts have different political views than I do and are most likely to ignore any messages they do not agree with..

In the run-up to the general election, I 'followed' prospective MPs from all parties on Twitter, so that I could get an insight into their thoughts and to see what they were promoting in their campaigns. I like to see and to read different views, because they might just say something I need to consider.

On a lighter note, you will sometimes find me down the pub, 'debating' with a Tory, Lib-Dem or even a UKIP supporter over a pint, because I enjoy a good debate and because I like talking to people. If they were all of the same mind as me, the debates would get pretty boring, pretty quickly.

But the main thing that helps to form my political views is _my experience_, every day, of living in a city where unemployment is above the national average, where people really are struggling to cope, where students I teach are worried that they will not be able to pay off their loans, because the jobs they are studying hard for will not be available to them when they graduate, and where people from different walks of life really are frightened for the future.
And many of these people will not go on Twitter or Facebook, or if they do, it will be to chill out, rather than look at political arguments.

Seeing left wing (or anti-Tory in general) supporters as influenced by social media is just another slur thrown out at people who may be a threat to the present government. But a threat not because of the influence of social media, but a threat because of their life experiences.

However, get these people more active on social media and they may well be a bigger threat, if only because they will share information on protests and how to get politically organised. So maybe the 'lefties' really should get into social media as much as the article suggests .


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Interesting reading the take of some of the prospective leadership candidates which don't really tally with many of the viewpoints on here
> 
> Yvette Cooper "Labour lost the election because if failed to convince voters it had the answers to match up with their ambitions. Labour needs to be bigger in its appeal, bolder in its ambitions and brighter about the future"
> 
> Andy Burnham "The party that I love has lost its emotional connection with millions of people. The way to get that back can't possibly be to choose one group of voters over another".
> 
> Chuka Umunna (the privately educated, savile row suited, lives in a posh house in London paid for from the family trust fund left winger who once asked a social networking site how to avoid "trash" on a night out) "We cannot have a message that anybody is too rich or too poor".


Interesting reading, partly because the prospective leaders of the Labour Party aren't listening to many of their core supporters and are floundering around looking for an acceptable 'Blairite' strategy instead.

But also interesting is the media interest particularly in picking on Chuka Umunna, possibly because they know that right now he appears to be the candidate most likely to win over the voters.

I do not agree with all the guy's policies by any means, but it has to be said that he has the type of charisma that saw Tony Blair win a landslide victory in 97. And I reckon that's what the media leaders think too.

Hence we already have them talking about his 'private education' - he lived in Streatham and went to the local school, but the school was failing hence his parents paid for him to go private - many Labour supporters, given the opportunity would most likely do the same thing for their kids if their local schools were crap - blame education cuts and the rise of 'academies', not those who want a better education for their kids.

And we have the media picking up comments he made on Twitter and the clothes he wears..... but ignoring the work he has already done as part of the Labour party, that he was not on the 'Blairite' side of Labour, that he can hold his own in political debates with some of the toughest TV reporters, and the fact he already has quite high respect and recognition among Labour voters.

So the recent descriptions of him show media foreboding, rather than anything else.


----------



## JANICE199

Jonescat said:


> I don't understand this - what definition of middle class are you thinking of?


*The way i have always viewed this is, we have the aristicracy and gentry, the rest of us are working class. No matter how much money we had, unless we were born into the first category we will always be the latter. I know my place.*


----------



## rona

patsymatsy said:


> I couldn't live off £72 a week long term, could you? I certainly do not grudge anyone their JSA, it is a pittance, and must be a miserable existence.


One of my sisters did long term and another for a short while. Both survived very well with all the other things they could claim.
The one that was on it for 5 years didn't have any luxuries, couldn't afford holidays or buy too many new clothes, but she survived


----------



## patsymatsy

rona said:


> One of my sisters did long term and another for a short while. Both survived very well with all the other things they could claim.
> The one that was on it for 5 years didn't have any luxuries, couldn't afford holidays or buy too many new clothes, but she survived


The bit I have underlined above is very misleading and naughty of you to say. People on JSA will only ever get £72 per week, there are no "others things they can claim". Rent paid, and council tax part paid, and that is it! And nowadays people on JSA with a spare room are even poorer, they have to pay the bedroom tax out of their £72 per week cash.

Seriously, your post is a clear demonstration of gilding the lily fact wise, and how elections are won by people's inaccurate chinese whispers.


----------



## Goblin

patsymatsy said:


> Rent paid, and council tax part paid


How many people have most of their wages actually going on things like rent or travel, especially around London. There's a reason so many people have to travel with all that entails. To actually have rent paid would be a major relief for a lot of people in work.


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> How many people have most of their wages actually going on things like rent or travel, especially around London. There's a reason so many people have to travel with all that entails. *To actually have rent paid would be a major relief for a lot of people in work.*


Yes it would be. And many people in work do get their rent paid, or part-paid, because they are in low paid jobs.
But when that rent is given in one hand and then part of it is taken back under the bedroom tax, it really isn't as straight forward as it seems.


----------



## rona

patsymatsy said:


> The bit I have underlined above is very misleading and naughty of you to say. People on JSA will only ever get £72 per week, there are no "others things they can claim". Rent paid, and council tax part paid, and that is it! And nowadays people on JSA with a spare room are even poorer, they have to pay the bedroom tax out of their £72 per week cash.
> 
> Seriously, your post is a clear demonstration of gilding the lily fact wise, and how elections are won by people's inaccurate chinese whispers.


I go on my own experiences and knowledge not what the papers say.

So you don't get free prescriptions, eye tests, dental treatment and aren't your pension credit protected?

Forgot Clothing allowance when you do have an interview

If you have debt then you are sunk before you start but then that's not the governments or Tory voters fault is it?


----------



## shetlandlover

StormyThai said:


> You're missing the point.
> The fact you can even think of starting a business (debt or not), and you have a roof over your head means that you are better off than many..not rich, not well off, but a hell of a lot better off than many.


But you have a roof over your head.....so we are no different.

I'm not bringing in a wage, I'm living off my husbands wage until the shop is fully paying for itself.

This means my rent for my home, council tax, tax, food, pet food, gas and electric all come out of 1 wage (a wage that might I add isn't huge).

If memory serves me right when me and hubby were on benefits we had our all our council tax paid for us, some of our rent, discounts on gas and electric, money towards heat in winter, free swimming passes, free prescriptions and if you needed something like a new bed or clothes you could apply for a grant.

I can firmly say that I may be better off than a homeless person but both me and my husband work our backsides off and are still worse off than many I know on benefits.


----------



## silvi

shetlandlover said:


> If memory serves me right when me and hubby were on benefits we had our all our council tax paid for us, some of our rent, discounts on gas and electric, money towards heat in winter, free swimming passes, free prescriptions and if you needed something like a new bed or clothes you could apply for a grant.
> 
> I can firmly say that I may be better off than a homeless person but both me and my husband work our backsides off and are still worse off than many I know on benefits.


But times have changed.

I think it still depends upon area, but certainly where we Iive, council tax rebates no long apply for those on benefits, unless you are a pensioner on guaranteed credits.

Discounts or rebates on energy bills only seem to apply to pensioners now. I don't know anyone who isn't a pensioner (or possibly some disabled) who can get them.

Yes, you can apply for a grant to help pay for essential needs, but that has to be thought about very carefully, as you will be expected to pay it back very quickly, and with a substantial part of your benefits. Taking account of the fact that many families will already be suffering from deductions for bedroom tax, and there is no way they could afford to pay back a grant, so they will not apply for them.

And as for free prescriptions, yes that still applies, as does free dental treatment. But in the latter case, it is very difficult to actually get the dental treatment you should get under the NHS (free or otherwise) because many dentists are deliberately refusing to perform the more expensive free or discounted treatments. It's the reason I am paying a monthly dental insurance so that we can all go to a private dentist, something I never would have imagined myself doing a few years ago, because the NHS dentistry in this area has become so poor.


----------



## rona

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yvette Cooper "Labour lost the election because if failed to convince voters it had the answers to match up with their ambitions. Labour needs to be bigger in its appeal, bolder in its ambitions and brighter about the future"


On a side note, Did anyone see that interview with Yvette Cooper yesterday?

She gives me the creeps  Very odd woman


----------



## patsymatsy

Crisis loans, and grants which people had to pay back off their benefit has been done away with shortly after the Tories came to power. Part of their Welfare cuts! Please keep up to date Tory voters. 

Clothing allowances (which were a one time only thing, and couldn't be demanded) was when a JSA claimant actually got a job, that no longer exists (cuts). Interview clothes and travel costs to interviews were done away with under the Labour government over a decade ago, but as far back as when John Major was PM travel expenses to interviews were becoming harder to give to claimants.

The amount you get in JSA, should cover ALL job seeking costs, that is in all the new JSA agreements! 

And I cannot believe members grudging NHS prescriptions and free dental appointments (most decent dental work you pay for) to the genuinely poor.

No fuel allowance for people on JSA. Though the sick and disabled DO get a cold weather payment of £25 if the temperature between nov-april falls below zero degrees on 7 days consecutively (rarely happens).

It is becoming very clear as this thread goes on how petty and grudging some people are. It is not a nice trait at all to be begrudging and totting up every little thing. But get your facts straight first, before you spread out dated misinformation. (I used to work for DWP).


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

There are plenty of people in work who don't have £72 to live off after their rent and council tax has been paid not to mention many pensioners. Having your rent and council tax paid is quite a big deal and yet again for the 100th time I/we do NOT begrudge any sick/disabled or genuinely out of work person these benefits.


----------



## silvi

patsymatsy said:


> Crisis loans, and grants which people had to pay back off their benefit has been done away with shortly after the Tories came to power. Part of their Welfare cuts! Please keep up to date Tory voters.
> 
> Clothing allowances (which were a one time only thing, and couldn't be demanded) was when a JSA claimant actually got a job. Interview clothes and travel costs to interviews were done away with under the Labour government over a decade ago.
> 
> And I cannot believe members grudging NHS prescriptions and free dental appointments (most decent dental work you pay for) to the genuinely poor.
> 
> No fuel allowance for people on JSA. Though the sick and disabled DO get a cold weather payment of £25 if the temperature between nov-april falls below zero degrees on 7 days consecutively (rarely happens).
> 
> It is becoming very clear as this thread goes on how petty and grudging some people are. It is not a nice trait at all to be begrudging and totting up every little thing. But get your facts straight first, before you spread out dated misinformation. (I used to work for DWP).


Slightly different figures here.....

I know someone who received a crisis loan as late as 2012. That same person has now, quite recently, received a loan to help pay for a washing machine.
However, they are now faced with paying back those loans at nearly £10 per week taken from their benefit and are struggling....a lot. So these loans are not to be taken lightly.

A relative of mine (working, single mum on top-ups) was told she would get no help with the new uniform demanded when the school her daughter attends became an 'academy', so yes, clothing allowances no longer exist in the way they used to.

Until recently (don't know if it is still available) there was a back to work bonus or tax refunds for those coming off of JSA to start their own business. It wasn't much, but it helped.

The cost of travelling to interviews used to be paid for, but isn't any more.

As to the cold weather payments, agreed, these are rarely made (and so few people can actually claim them anyway), but there is another government arrangement made with the energy companies, that if the temperature goes below a certain amount (don't know what that amount is off the top of my head), then a percentage rebate will be given to pensioners and some disabled from the energy company themselves. My mum is a pensioner and has received this for the last two years, even though the temperatures haven't been that low, so I guess it follows different rules than the zero degrees one.

I think it's important to realise that not everything has been taken away.....yet.

But by my calculations, those who have suffered the most so far have been unemployed or low-paid workers below pension age.

The disabled have also suffered, but in this case, I think it's more in terms of the ever stricter regulations on how to apply for their benefits and of the unbending attitude of those assessing them. When they do manage to (literally in some cases) jump through the enormous hoops put in their way to getting benefits, they should get similar allowances for heating as do pensioners. But of course, unlike pensioners, they will have bedroom tax deducted from them if applicable.

As I said, not quite everything has been taken away....yet.....
But we all need to be prepared because there will definitely be more to come.


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> There are plenty of people in work who don't have £72 to live off after their rent and council tax has been paid not to mention many pensioners.


Just being pedantic here, but I think that pensioners actually get at least double that amount?


----------



## patsymatsy

Silvi ,crisis loans and grants no longer exist via the DWP, UK wide cuts. But people are still paying off previous loans given.

What people can do is apply for local Council loans, here in Scotland the SNP called it the Welfare fund. The money comes from Council funding. It may be called something else down south, maybe that is how your friend got money for a washing machine? But the council again, rarely pay out on this fund. Usually reserved only for the mentally ill, or disabled.

Rate of repayments are high (as you point out), gone are the days of paying it off at £3.00 a week, more like £10-15 a week so that it is paid back quickly.

A very good article some may want to read:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...adviser-play-benefit-sanctions-angela-neville

A snippet:

"We were given lists of customers to call immediately and get them on to the Work Programme," she recalls. "I said, 'I'm sorry this can't happen, this man is in hospital.' I was told [by my boss]: 'No, you've got to phone him and you've got to put this to him and he may be sanctioned.' I said I'm not doing it."


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

silvi said:


> Just being pedantic here, but I think that pensioners actually get at least double that amount?


Yes I know what the state pension is but if you have a little bit over that then you don't get rent or mortgage payments and council tax paid so my point was their disposable income could be much the same.


----------



## StormyThai

shetlandlover said:


> But you have a roof over your head.....so we are no different.
> 
> .


Who said we were talking about me?
Although I would give anything to be able to fund the capital to even consider having my own business 

Because my OH works (thankfully) we get no help from no one (especially now all the funding for retraining for disabled people is getting cut) but that doesn't make me resentful of others that can claim for other benefits


----------



## Mulish

rottiepointerhouse said:


> If you want to win back some of the middle ground you have to stop preaching doom and gloom and attacking people who voted differently to you. You won't win people over to your way by telling them they are selfish or were brain washed.


Ideally, this is what I'd like to see all of the opposition parties start doing (I think SNP come closest to it right now). So many of us are just worn down with the day to day crappity of life and it's led to bitterness and apathy. If a few more parties were willing to listen to what's wanted and needed and find a way to offer at least some of that, it might take them awhile but I honestly think they'd gain more momentum and become more credible opposition. Offer hope rather than an alternative scare story. Engage with and make people care again. They've got 5 years and they could do it but it will mean completely rethinking the traditional way politics is done.

I'm pretty fed up with constantly just throwing my vote at whoever I see to be the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Goblin

Mulish said:


> If a few more parties were willing to listen to what's wanted and needed and find a way to offer at least some of that, it might take them awhile but I honestly think they'd gain more momentum and become more credible opposition.


The trouble now is we have professional politicians with their attached spin doctors, not people who take the post to represent their constituents.


----------



## Elles

How do they know what people want and what's most likely to get them votes? Politicians are human too (just about), so what do they do? Read the papers and grab ideas for their manifesto? Look at what the country can afford and work it out financially? Pay backhanders to influence the news and papers to brainwash the rest of us? Use the Old Boy's club to get people who agree with them into influential positions? Get together with their mates in the pub and solve World problems? Follow trends on twitter and face-book? What? How did the Tories know what to emphasise in their discussions and manifesto to get them elected? If most of us think they make it up as they go along and never stick to their promises, why did we vote for any of them? Beats me.


----------



## silvi

patsymatsy said:


> *Silvi ,crisis loans and grants no longer exist via the DWP, UK wide cuts. But people are still paying off previous loans given. *
> 
> What people can do is apply for local Council loans, here in Scotland the SNP called it the Welfare fund. The money comes from Council funding. It may be called something else down south, maybe that is how your friend got money for a washing machine? But the council again, rarely pay out on this fund. Usually reserved only for the mentally ill, or disabled.
> 
> Rate of repayments are high (as you point out), gone are the days of paying it off at £3.00 a week, more like £10-15 a week so that it is paid back quickly.
> 
> A very good article some may want to read:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...adviser-play-benefit-sanctions-angela-neville
> 
> A snippet:
> 
> "We were given lists of customers to call immediately and get them on to the Work Programme," she recalls. "I said, 'I'm sorry this can't happen, this man is in hospital.' I was told [by my boss]: 'No, you've got to phone him and you've got to put this to him and he may be sanctioned.' I said I'm not doing it."


Ah, okay, that explains it. but I do know that the friend I mentioned did get a crisis loan in 2012, because I waited outside the job centre with her children, while she went in to get the cheque. She had just been made unemployed (from a zero hours contract job) and had to wait over two weeks to get a JSA payment.

As to the washing machine.....yes, that could well have been a local council loan or whatever it was called. I just saw the application form she had to print out and fill in (and told her not to go for it....). But she is not disabled. She had had to move housing authority accommodation and her previous flat had had a washing machine. Just lucky to get the loan I guess.... if that was the right word, lol!


----------



## havoc

_How do they know what people want and what's most likely to get them votes?_
The parties pay for polls. Because they're paid for from private funds rather than public money these are much more detailed and not made public. The company paid by the Labour party claim they had the result almost spot on and Labour knew they were behind from the start.


----------



## Satori

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm pretty fed up with constantly just throwing my vote at whoever I see to be the lesser of two evils.


Yup. I wonder how many people voted for the least worst option? Would love to see a poll of that.


----------



## silvi

Elles said:


> How do they know what people want and what's most likely to get them votes?


Employ experts on propaganda techniques?
A 'good' propagandist knows that divide and conquer is always a good way to go, especially if you emphasise 'them and us' and try to assure those you want to vote for you that they are part of the 'us' group.

But I would guess there are certain things that UK politicians know they have to appeal on behalf of:
The NHS is, I think, the real biggie, and let's face it, there is so much that can be used regarding the NHS to set up the 'them and us' stance....
All you need is to convince people that the 'wrong' people are getting NHS treatment and you are at least half way there...

Along with this, you will have:

Not hitting pensioners too hard. No one wants to see the elderly suffering.

Not hitting the sick too hard (but here you can get away with the 'make sure they are really sick' argument).

And the 'law and order' debate with emphasis depending upon which party you belong to. And of course this is another place where much scare mongering about 'them' can be brought into play....

Get the voters to believe that they are part of the 'us' group threatened by the 'them' group and that's all you need really.
Or at least, that how it seems to me....


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> The trouble now is we have professional politicians with their attached spin doctors, not people who take the post to represent their constituents.


But a further problem is that when you do get a prospective MP who is part of the community, who knows the community and its needs, and who wants to really represent that community, they often do not get picked by the major parties and either have to work their way up, losing some of their core beliefs on the way, or stand for a small party with no hope of getting elected.


----------



## Spellweaver

rottiepointerhouse said:


> As I thought - typical socialist - full of plans for other peoples money. We have food banks too so who do you think funds them and donates to them - is it the Scots sending money and food south of the border. By the way 36.9% voted Tory but a further 12.6 % voted UKIP making 49.5% who don't want or agree with Labour policies. The combined Labour/SNP/Green vote was 38.9%


Crikey - been busy for the last few days and I come back to pages and pages! Gonna keep reading and replying to the rest, but to begin with - we can twist the statistics by combining votes for the different parties any way we like, but the fact remains that due to our warped "democratic" system, we have a party in charge for the next five years that only 37% of those who voted (ie not even 37% of the country) voted for. As I was arguing with T&T well before the election (must have been well before the election cos he's changed from T&T through Canology and then to Snow Dog since then) - it's time we replaced our undemocratic "democratic" system with a proportional representation system.

As I said at the time, yes, we'll almost always end up with a coalition - but at least it will be a coalition representative of how people have voted and not a "deal done in a dark room", to quote Cameron. And I'm aware that in this election it would mean UKIP would have a far greater representation than their one seat - but even though it pains me to say it, that would be far more democratic than our present system.


----------



## Elles

People wouldn't necessarily vote in the same way if we had PR. I wonder who will get the Labour leadership. Probably the Scottish woman, to try to get Scotland back. After some propaganda on her behalf and they've run a poll to see if she's viewed as popular in Scotland.


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes I know what the state pension is but if you have a little bit over that then you don't get rent or mortgage payments and council tax paid so my point was their disposable income could be much the same.


Ah okay. that's true, regarding only getting some benefits if they are under a particular figure. And I know that pensioner's leaders are constantly campaigning because, even though their allowed income under the credits system is still around twice the amount paid to anyone on JSA, that amount has also been capped.

But the actual amount a pensioner on credits gets to live on is still twice that allowed to a JSA claimant and of course as of yet, they do not get hit by the bedroom tax.
But really it's all smoke and mirrors, as the income they get is still pretty damn low, despite being promised by all political parties prior to 2010 that it would be increased.


----------



## silvi

Spellweaver said:


> Crikey - been busy for the last few days and I come back to pages and pages! Gonna keep reading and replying to the rest, but to begin with - we can twist the statistics by combining votes for the different parties any way we like, but the fact remains that due to our warped "democratic" system, we have a party in charge for the next five years that only 37% of those who voted (ie not even 37% of the country) voted for. As I was arguing with T&T well before the election (must have been well before the election cos he's changed from T&T through Canology and then to Snow Dog since then) - it's time we replaced our undemocratic "democratic" system with a proportional representation system.
> 
> As I said at the time, yes, we'll almost always end up with a coalition - but at least it will be a coalition representative of how people have voted and not a "deal done in a dark room", to quote Cameron. And I'm aware that in this election it would mean UKIP would have a far greater representation than their one seat - but even though it pains me to say it, that would be far more democratic than our present system.


Do you know, I've been thinking about that a bit more, and I reckon that, had we had a fair and well-worked-out PR system prior to the election and it had been well-explained to the voters, I'm not so sure as I was originally that UKIP would have done so well.

I for one would have voted for The Greens, rather than Labour and I can't be the only one whose vote would have been different if used under PR.
I also think that some UKIP votes were definitely still in protest and I wonder if so many people would have voted UKIP had they realised that they could have ended up being governed by them.


----------



## Spellweaver

cheekyscrip said:


> To all advocating communism I advise to spend few good years as a regular citizen there...say North Korea..
> Then we will be talking..


Communism is an excellent ideal - it's only when you add people to the picture that it all falls apart!

I think a society where everyone's work contributiion was valued equally and renumerated equally (because whatever the job, it is just as essential for keeping the country running as any other) would be absolutely fantastic. However, it would only ever work as an ideal. It could never possibly work in real life because you'd never get a politician or a brain surgeon to accept the idea that a road sweeper or a toilet attendant was performing work of equal value and deserving of equal renumeration as theirs. There are always going to be some people who feel they are more equal than others. (apologies to George Orwell)


----------



## Colliebarmy

silvi said:


> And I know that pensioner's leaders are constantly campaigning because, even though their allowed income under the credits system is still around twice the amount paid to anyone on JSA, that amount has also been capped.
> 
> But the actual amount a pensioner on credits gets to live on is still twice that allowed to a JSA claimant and of course as of yet, they do not get hit by the bedroom tax.


MAYBE (just maybe) thats because the Senior Citizen isnt able to work whereas many JSA claimants are, plus many Senior Citizens wouldnt dream of using foodbanks so they can have Sky TV and a McDonalds 5 times a week, smoke and drink, and maybe the JSA claimants need a nudge to go out and earn their weed money?

And many Senior Citizens have lifetime of work and contributions that have gone into "the system"


----------



## silvi

Colliebarmy said:


> MAYBE (just maybe) thats because the Senior Citizen isnt able to work whereas many JSA claimants are, plus many Senior Citizens wouldnt dream of using foodbanks so they can have Sky TV and a McDonalds 5 times a week, smoke and drink, and maybe the JSA claimants need a nudge to go out and earn their weed money?
> 
> And many Senior Citizens have lifetime of work and contributions that have gone into "the system"


Your view of people is interesting to say the least....


----------



## Colliebarmy

silvi said:


> Your view of people is interesting to say the least....


Well Im probably not the only one who thinks like it or we wouldnt have a Tory government


----------



## silvi

Colliebarmy said:


> Well Im probably not the only one who thinks like it or we wouldnt have a Tory government


Don't tell that to the other Tory voters on here.
They are trying their utmost to show that they are not prejudiced


----------



## Colliebarmy

silvi said:


> Don't tell that to the other Tory voters on here.
> They are trying their utmost to show that they are not prejudiced


Its not an "ism" but lets crackdown on the layabouts


----------



## Goblin

Shouldn't forget, 2011 the UK voting public voted against a more proportional representation style system. Both parties have now been voted in with 37% of the vote at some time. No massive complaints then about how it wasn't fair, not a democracy etc when it previously occurred. Time to move on to policies and how to influence them with the parliament which has been legally elected.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> However according to the democratic process of the UK which other parties have supported and not changed, the tories have won the election fairly. If labour had won, would the people complaining, including you, start complaining about they weren't voted in by the majority of the population? You don't change rules simply when they go against you but happily swan along when they do.


Many of us who are complaining now were bemoaning the present system as undemocratic well before the election, so that knocks your argument above into a cocked hat.

In all walks of life throughout the ages some people have tugged their forelocks, accepted their lot and taken whatever life has thrown at them. Others, thank goodness, have questioned the status quo, found it wanting, ignored the pompous who tried to say that everything was fair, and fought against it until it was replaced with something better. I am so glad they did, or we would still be in the dark ages.

You cannot deny people their right to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo - in this case our supposed "democratic" system - and neither should you deny them their right to protest against the system, demonstrate agauinst the system, or even fight to change the system, if that is what they wish to do.

Of course, that may all alter when the Tories strip our rights away when they dispense with the Human Rights bill, but that's a subject for a whole new thread.


----------



## rona

patsymatsy said:


> Crisis loans, and grants which people had to pay back off their benefit has been done away with shortly after the Tories came to power. Part of their Welfare cuts! Please keep up to date Tory voters.


Actually I meant loans taken out before going on benefit. If people live beyond their means while working, That's no ones fault but their own



patsymatsy said:


> Clothing allowances (which were a one time only thing, and couldn't be demanded) was when a JSA claimant actually got a job, that no longer exists (cuts).


https://www.gov.uk/budgeting-loans/eligibility



patsymatsy said:


> And I cannot believe members grudging NHS prescriptions and free dental appointments (most decent dental work you pay for) to the genuinely poor.


I was just answering your last accusation, but don't let that stop you twisting the truth again 

You do have to take that and rent and council tax into the equation when working out how much people on JSA and other benefits are actually getting


----------



## Spellweaver

Changes said:


> One Housing association has researched the true impact of the new benefit caps that research in January revealed every single three-bedroom home it has across 35 areas would become instantly unaffordable for families on full housing benefit due to the cap.
> 
> Where are these families going to go?
> 
> Just because right now you can afford your living costs, does not mean that in the future you will be able to afford your living costs, if we let the Tories do this to the most vulnerable people there will be nothing stopping them doing this to you...


I really wish we had the rep button back - there aer several posts I would like to give rep for on this thread, but especally this one.


----------



## Satori

silvi said:


> Employ experts on propaganda techniques?
> A 'good' propagandist knows that divide and conquer is always a good way to go, especially if you emphasise 'them and us' and try to assure those you want to vote for you that they are part of the 'us' group.
> 
> But I would guess there are certain things that UK politicians know they have to appeal on behalf of:
> The NHS is, I think, the real biggie, and let's face it, there is so much that can be used regarding the NHS to set up the 'them and us' stance....
> All you need is to convince people that the 'wrong' people are getting NHS treatment and you are at least half way there...
> 
> Along with this, you will have:
> 
> Not hitting pensioners too hard. No one wants to see the elderly suffering.
> 
> Not hitting the sick too hard (but here you can get away with the 'make sure they are really sick' argument).
> 
> And the 'law and order' debate with emphasis depending upon which party you belong to. And of course this is another place where much scare mongering about 'them' can be brought into play....
> 
> Get the voters to believe that they are part of the 'us' group threatened by the 'them' group and that's all you need really.
> Or at least, that how it seems to me....


Oh, you are so right. (I mean as in correct ). I've said it before but the Tories created two incredible realities in people's minds.

1. That Gordon Brown left a screwed up economy and everything they did was to fix the mess left by the previous administration.

2. That society is divided into workers and shirkers.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Sheer political genius.

The sad thing is that Labour stayed on the defensive for 5 years. Even with the open goal that was left to them pre -election (bedroom tax, food banks etc..) they seemed not to want the ball.


----------



## Spellweaver

new westie owner said:


> It was all over Twitter #takeuswithyouscotland
> View attachment 230836


Only problem I have with this is that the line is too far north! Extend it down to us in Derbyshire - we want to come too!


----------



## rona

........................................


----------



## CRL

Spellweaver said:


> Only problem I have with this is that the line is too far north! Extend it down to us in Derbyshire - we want to come too!


Im in wiltshire and i want to come too. Dont leave me


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Spellweaver said:


> Crikey - been busy for the last few days and I come back to pages and pages! Gonna keep reading and replying to the rest, but to begin with - we can twist the statistics by combining votes for the different parties any way we like, but the fact remains that due to our warped "democratic" system, we have a party in charge for the next five years that only 37% of those who voted (ie not even 37% of the country) voted for. As I was arguing with T&T well before the election (must have been well before the election cos he's changed from T&T through Canology and then to Snow Dog since then) - it's time we replaced our undemocratic "democratic" system with a proportional representation system.
> 
> As I said at the time, yes, we'll almost always end up with a coalition - but at least it will be a coalition representative of how people have voted and not a "deal done in a dark room", to quote Cameron. And I'm aware that in this election it would mean UKIP would have a far greater representation than their one seat - but even though it pains me to say it, that would be far more democratic than our present system.


But we voted on whether to change the system in 2011 and the public said no.


----------



## Spellweaver

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But we voted on whether to change the system in 2011 and the public said no.


I'm not surprised they did - I was one of them. What we were given to vote on was as far away from a PR system as the present system. It was merely a very complicated and convoluted system involving a first choice and a second choice, that (according to the media) many people at the time were saying was impossible to understand. So it's hardly surprising that it was thrown out.

We'll never have PR in this country - because whatever the party in power, they're not going to change the system that put them there.


----------



## Goblin

is still apt.


----------



## havoc

_There are always going to be some people who feel they are more equal than others. (apologies to George Orwell)_
Is the person who works 37 hours a week, clocking in and knocking off to the second in a job created for them worth exactly the same as the person who worked in excess of 140 hours a week for years creating that job? Is there to be no incentive or reward for those who are prepared to work harder and take the risks which ultimately benefit others as well as themselves?


----------



## rona

Goblin said:


> is still apt.


Ruddy brilliant


----------



## noushka05

Calling all Lefties! Huge turn out for Radical Left Assembly meeting tonight. Live streamed for those interested http://bambuser.com/v/5512789

https://www.facebook.com/events/1588733401408239

_The reaction has been massive. Thousands of people have joined angry anti-Tory protests, and thousands say they are coming to meetings to discuss what to do. A space has opened up for something that is truly democratic, bottom-up, radical, and based on mass action from below.

Our hope and aim is the creation of a new joined-up radical left movement or network. The movement will be shaped by all of us in the days ahead. But our initial proposals are:

• A movement made up of groups which keep their independence but come together to support each other's campaigns and plan action.

• A movement rooted in real, localised campaigns and wider struggles, especially those in which the people themselves organise to fight back against injustice and oppression.

• A movement united on every issue - on unemployment and unaffordable rents, on fracking and climate change, on tuition fees and student debt, on the gentrification of our communities, on the privatisation of the NHS, on the violence and racism of the police, on the criminalisation of the homeless and the poor, and so many more.

• A movement controlled democratically, from below, with a loose federal structure which can accommodate an expanding number of independent radical groups and assemblies within it.

• A movement united around broad anti-capitalist aims, these to be formulated by the constituent groups, but agreed by general assemblies.

• A movement which aims to grow and unite people in active struggle against the system.

Brick Lane Debat_


----------



## cheekyscrip

Spellweaver said:


> Communism is an excellent ideal - it's only when you add people to the picture that it all falls apart!
> 
> I think a society where everyone's work contributiion was valued equally and renumerated equally (because whatever the job, it is just as essential for keeping the country running as any other) would be absolutely fantastic. However, it would only ever work as an ideal. It could never possibly work in real life because you'd never get a politician or a brain surgeon to accept the idea that a road sweeper or a toilet attendant was performing work of equal value and deserving of equal renumeration as theirs. There are always going to be some people who feel they are more equal than others. (apologies to George Orwell)


For once we agree: communism is brilliant until you add people. It works for ants!..People do not want to be equal.
They want to be different!..Mao, Stalin tried their best to get rid of anything that dared to differ...They also created Inner Party.

Which had shops, hotels, mansions, gardens, brothels just for them
Elections provided you with ballot paper containing candidates of one and only Party in right order and you would be arrested if you tried to cross anything etc..voting was compulsory.
Everybody but inner party was equally poor.
But vodka was cheap and plenty
Human rights were not necessary.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Goblin said:


> Shouldn't forget, 2011 the UK voting public voted against a more proportional representation style system. Both parties have now been voted in with 37% of the vote at some time. No massive complaints then about how it wasn't fair, not a democracy etc when it previously occurred. Time to move on to policies and how to influence them with the parliament which has been legally elected.


I've actually bitched about it every time, but it's become more popular this year. 



Spellweaver said:


> I'm not surprised they did - I was one of them. What we were given to vote on was as far away from a PR system as the present system. It was merely a very complicated and convoluted system involving a first choice and a second choice, that (according to the media) many people at the time were saying was impossible to understand. So it's hardly surprising that it was thrown out.
> 
> We'll never have PR in this country - because whatever the party in power, they're not going to change the system that put them there.


I also voted no for AV, despite being a supporter of electoral reform for some years now - because the AV system proposed was frankly bizarre and still would not have come close to PR. I cannot help but suspect such a convoluted system was proposed so that people would reject it, thus keeping the current system.


----------



## patsymatsy

rona said:


> Actually I meant loans taken out before going on benefit. If people live beyond their means while working, That's no ones fault but their own
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/budgeting-loans/eligibility
> 
> I was just answering your last accusation, but don't let that stop you twisting the truth again
> 
> You do have to take that and rent and council tax into the equation when working out how much people on JSA and other benefits are actually getting


Rona, my discussion about loans was with Silvi not yourself.

Thank you for the link to Budgeting loans, I was unware that they still existed (I guess I am not aware of EVERYTHING, I stand corrected). But that is hardly the same as "free clothes for an interview" as you were trying to make out. These "loans" are paid back via deductions from JSA (or whatever benefit that is claimed/qualified for).

I acknowleded several times that JSA claimants get Housing and Council tax benefit, so I fail to see the point you are trying to make? £72 is what they get in their pocket to spend per week on bills, debts, food etc.

I am not twisting the truth, I am simply mystified at why you would grudge someone their measly JSA payment. You talk like it is handsome amount of money to live on. Which I find incredulous, sorry!


----------



## silvi

noushka05 said:


> Calling all Lefties! Huge turn out for Radical Left Assembly meeting tonight. Live streamed for those interested http://bambuser.com/v/5512789
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/events/1588733401408239


Here it is on Twitter for anyone interested:
https://twitter.com/BrickLDebates

And the website page with more details:
One week after elections thousands respond to call for radical campaign for real change

My problem here (and it has been addressed by others in the FB comments), is that the second of their ideas for the movement is this:


> A movement rooted in real, localised campaigns and wider struggles, especially those in which the people themselves organise to fight back against injustice and oppression.


But even though I live relatively near to London (90 minutes by train anyway), I can't get there on short notice. A meeting like this is a good start, but we have to work locally as well as nationally and the focus points have to be nationwide.

As someone on FB commented:


> I'm seeing a lot of meetings responding to the GE and every one is in London, so here's the first radical suggestion, meet outside of the capital bubble, you will be surprised what the rest of England is like.


Thanks for the live stream though


----------



## Spellweaver

havoc said:


> _There are always going to be some people who feel they are more equal than others. (apologies to George Orwell)_
> Is the person who works 37 hours a week, clocking in and knocking off to the second in a job created for them worth exactly the same as the person who worked in excess of 140 hours a week for years creating that job? Is there to be no incentive or reward for those who are prepared to work harder and take the risks which ultimately benefit others as well as themselves?


You've not got it quite right - the person working 37 hours per week would get 37 x the hourly rate and the person working 140 hours per week would get 140 x the hourly rate.

But see what I mean about it being an ok ideal until you put people into the system?

The idea is that every single job within a society is necessary to keep society runnning.
If you take away the person who does the job, society fails.
If you take away the person who ceates jobs, society fails.
Therefore someone does the job that has been created is as intrinsically necessary to the society as the person who is working to create jobs
Therefore their hourly rate should be the same

It sounds fair until you put people into it - because when you put people into it you get arguments such as yours above about one person wanting his work to be recognised as more important, and hence worthy of more money, than another's.


----------



## noushka05

silvi said:


> Here it is on Twitter for anyone interested:
> https://twitter.com/BrickLDebates
> 
> And the website page with more details:
> One week after elections thousands respond to call for radical campaign for real change
> 
> My problem here (and it has been addressed by others in the FB comments), is that the second of their ideas for the movement is this:
> 
> But even though I live relatively near to London (90 minutes by train anyway), I can't get there on short notice. A meeting like this is a good start, but we have to work locally as well as nationally and the focus points have to be nationwide.
> 
> As someone on FB commented:
> 
> Thanks for the live stream though


I agree, I'm almost 4 hours away from London, there no way I could get there without lots of forward planning. (I am hoping to make the big anti austerity march in June) All that said the Tories are determined to stamp out dissent. This is chilling, have you seen it Silvi? - http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/how-obeying-law-no-longer-5688690?ICID=FB_mirror_main

*"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'."* WTF?!!!

( you're very welcome 4 livestream  )


----------



## silvi

noushka05 said:


> I agree, I'm almost 4 hours away from London, there no way I could get there without lots of forward planning. (I am hoping to make the big anti austerity march in June) All that said the Tories are determined to stamp out dissent. This is chilling, have you seen it Silvi? - http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/how-obeying-law-no-longer-5688690?ICID=FB_mirror_main
> 
> *"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'."* WTF?!!!
> 
> ( you're very welcome 4 livestream  )


Sadly, stamping out dissent was bound to happen now the Tories have a majority.

But I have to say that they already have a mandate for this back from Blair and the whole original 'anti-terror' campaign of Blair and Bush.
And going back to Maggie and her assault upon the unions, which was never overturned.....

This government hardly have to think about how to do this - most of it is waiting ready to go.
And for them, scrapping the Human Rights Act is the icing on the cake.

That Daily Mirror article linked to another, which i believe I saw earlier in the thread, but here it is again:
7 ways to make a difference if you oppose the Conservative government

That's worth a read too.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Spellweaver said:


> You've not got it quite right - the person working 37 hours per week would get 37 x the hourly rate and the person working 140 hours per week would get 140 x the hourly rate.


Depends on whether you're salaried or not I suppose.

My rota employs me for about 40 hours per week. Barring holidays, I never do less. I very frequently do more and sometimes double it. But it's always the same take-home pay each month.

Pros and cons to hourly pay, I guess.


----------



## Colliebarmy

Shoshannah said:


> Depends on whether you're salaried or not I suppose.
> 
> My rota employs me for about 40 hours per week. Barring holidays, I never do less. I very frequently do more and sometimes double it. But it's always the same take-home pay each month.
> 
> Pros and cons to hourly pay, I guess.


That would be an unfair contract as you cannot average LESS than 40 hours per week then, do 80 and your on half pay, if the hourly rate was then *below* the NMW you have a case for being paid what they owe to make it upto the NMW...


----------



## noushka05

JANICE199 said:


> *Well if they are not yet, they should be. They say the devil looks after his own. *





patsymatsy said:


> It is a fundamental fact that the Conservative party policies and ethos favour the rich, always have always will. They think the working classes are "plebs", and smirk and chuckle in Parliament when they announce changes that will cripple the poor, even more.
> 
> I find it simply mind blowing that anyone who is working class votes Tory.... I say again, mind blowing! It just beggars belief...
> 
> Propaganda spouted by the media seems to have worked.... they have brainwashed people into HATING the unemployed, disabled, and immigrants by putting the blame on those groups for the countries ills (a lie).
> 
> It is a distraction technique called "distract them with the left hand, and they won't notice what is happening with the right"!
> 
> Also a technique called "divide and conquer". They have successfully divided the working class vote, by feeding into the human emotion of envy, with media misinformation.
> 
> They have people thinking all the unemployed are living it up, and get more money than people who work. This is bullshit! A single person on JSA gets £72 a week in their hand (rent and council tax is paid), or £54 a week if under 24 years old.
> 
> I couldn't live off £72 a week long term, could you? I certainly do not grudge anyone their JSA, it is a pittance, and must be a miserable existence.
> 
> Only the extremely disabled, or people with loads of children get enough benefit to live on, which is the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> Bitterness and envy are the human emotions the Tories have successfully tapped into, to get the working man voting Conservative.
> 
> We have a situation now where anyone with a job and mortgage thinks they are middle class ha ha! And therefore vote Tory!


These posts reminded me of this Nye Bevan quote lol


----------



## Goblin

Don't need a meme and a quote.

How do the left persuade people they know how to solve everything and that people cannot better themselves... persuade them anyone richer is to blame and they deserve a share without doing anything.

Goes both ways. Unfortunately the middle ground is missing.


----------



## patsymatsy

noushka05 said:


> These posts reminded me this Nye Bevan quote lol


It would be funny, if it wasn't so ironic and sad... like sheep to the slaughter! Oh how they must laugh at the daft "plebs" (turkeys voting for christmas).


----------



## silvi

Goblin said:


> Don't need a meme and a quote.


I quite like memes and quotes 

Why do they annoy some people so much?


----------



## Satori

Spellweaver said:


> You've not got it quite right - the person working 37 hours per week would get 37 x the hourly rate and the person working 140 hours per week would get 140 x the hourly rate.
> 
> But see what I mean about it being an ok ideal until you put people into the system?
> 
> The idea is that every single job within a society is necessary to keep society runnning.
> If you take away the person who does the job, society fails.
> If you take away the person who ceates jobs, society fails.
> Therefore someone does the job that has been created is as intrinsically necessary to the society as the person who is working to create jobs
> Therefore their hourly rate should be the same
> 
> It sounds fair until you put people into it - because when you put people into it you get arguments such as yours above about one person wanting his work to be recognised as more important, and hence worthy of more money, than another's.


Even if people don't make subjective assesments of the value of their work, simple supply and demand will contrive to spoil the system. Without doubt, the person who cleaned the operating theatre is as important to the successful outcome of an operation as is the cardiac surgeon. However, if there are a million times more people capable of doing the former job than there are the latter, no system will in practise remove supply and demand from the way in which their inputs are priced.


----------



## noushka05

silvi said:


> Sadly, stamping out dissent was bound to happen now the Tories have a majority.
> 
> But I have to say that they already have a mandate for this back from Blair and the whole original 'anti-terror' campaign of Blair and Bush.
> And going back to Maggie and her assault upon the unions, which was never overturned.....
> 
> This government hardly have to think about how to do this - most of it is waiting ready to go.
> And for them, scrapping the Human Rights Act is the icing on the cake.
> 
> That Daily Mirror article linked to another, which i believe I saw earlier in the thread, but here it is again:
> 7 ways to make a difference if you oppose the Conservative government
> 
> That's worth a read too.


That's how they chip away at democracy under the pretence of it being for own good And the tories aren't chipping away , they are smashing it to pieces with flamin great sledge hammer! No more anti badger cull marches, anti fracking protests, wounded badger patrols, saboteurs & so on- I've no doubt about that. They are toxic, everything they do has an ulterior motive! I hope we can unite to stop them destroying everything that made this country a great one.

I had seen that article, but thanks for linking it again  . I already tick a few boxes, but will definitely be doing more.


----------



## patsymatsy

Goblin, I am not against the wealthy and the business classes, they after all create jobs, and create the infrastructure around us, within our daily lives.

What I object to is time and time again throughout history, when times are "hard" the Tories always impose their cuts on the poor, to balance the books.

Mr Unemployed now needs to pay bedroom tax, from his £72 JSA in times of "austerity", and has the constant threat of sanctions cutting his £72 even further.

Yet Mr Rich, who is worth £100 million has no cuts or taxes imposed on him, in fact his wealth grows to £200 million during times of "austerity".

In it together? Emmm, the reality is the poor are paying the price of austerity, not the rich. It is just sick imo.

The old saying "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is ALWAYS true under a Tory government.

Have you ever watched the Parliament channel? Whenever the Tories announce another cut to welfare, they all laugh, smirk and jeer. It is nauseating, "take that plebs".

The Tories are the enemy of the working person also, zero hours, having to claim benefit whilst in work due to low pay, and not getting enough hours. Shocking! Yet the turkeys have voted for christmas all over again....


----------



## Satori

silvi said:


> I quite like memes and quotes
> 
> Why do they annoy some people so much?


Oh, go on then....


----------



## patsymatsy

My final word on the matter, I am finding this all draining and we are all going around in circles.

Ask yourself this...

If you had no money, and desperately needed £10 and you HAD to steal from someone.

Would you (A) steal the £10 from the man with only £12 in his wallet (that is all the money he has in the world to last him a week for food),
or (B) would you steal the £10 from the man with £10,000 in his wallet which he will spend all on luxuries?

A "leftie" will always, ALWAYS choose option (B). The Tory party will nearly always go for option (A).

Knowing full well the rich guy probably wouldn't even miss the £10, but the poor guy would suffer immeasurably losing his £10.

On that basic premise alone, I will never vote Conservative. I am a great believer in fair play, and doing the right thing.

I question the moral code of anyone who "votes" to take option (A).

Now I really am out of this thread (I promise). x


----------



## silvi

Satori said:


> Oh, go on then....
> 
> View attachment 230996


Yeah okay....


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Colliebarmy said:


> That would be an unfair contract as you cannot average LESS than 40 hours per week then, do 80 and your on half pay, if the hourly rate was then *below* the NMW you have a case for being paid what they owe to make it upto the NMW...


It's the nature of my work.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

I hope Brick Lane has changed since the days when I went there on AR demos, it was full of live animals waiting for ritual slaughter, the noise and the smell was quite grim.


----------



## Goblin

patsymatsy said:


> Mr Unemployed now needs to pay bedroom tax, from his £72 JSA in times of "austerity", and has the constant threat of sanctions cutting his £72 even further.
> 
> Yet Mr Rich, who is worth £100 million has no cuts or taxes imposed on him, in fact his wealth grows to £200 million during times of "austerity".


I don't think you'll find many people who think cuts for those who need welfare are fair or correctly targeted. Bedroom tax is good in theory but needs alternative housing available, rooms for disabled to be taken into consideration etc. However at it's core the theory is sound. Application is the problem as you are dealing with people, not simply numbers.

You also totally ignore the fact that the rich are paying more under the Tories than they did under Labour. The methods used however are such that they don't simply cause the rich to up and leave reducing actual government income. Brown tried that and caused a loss of 7billion as the rich can and do simply up and leave to tax havens. I believe places like Dubai are popular. Milliband was going to replicate the exact thing as well as introduce mansion tax which would hit not simply the rich with disposable income but others with little disposable income but expensive houses. Many of which weren't expensive when they brought them potentially decades ago. How can people complain about people being forced to move with bedroom tax who do not own their house when they are actually supporting forcing people to move who actually do own their own house? As an aside I personally think laws preventing foreign housing speculation from people who buy and leave houses empty purely as an investment and don't pay UK taxes needs to be looked at but that's another topic entirely.

As I've stated, both extremes need to be looked at. The rich yes but keeping their investment within the country. Welfare should be based on need, not desire and we need to encourage people into employment. Neither main party was going to do that.


----------



## Goblin

Couple of charts..



















Based on 2012 figures. So what does this mean? Simply put, it doesn't pay to work at low levels.

So what is being done? Labour would simply pay more to those out of work. Tories, raise the starting point where you start paying tax, increasing the incentive to actually work.

I'll quote an independent think tank The Center for Social Justice from 2013.



> Nearly one fifth of UK children (1.8 million) are growing up in a workless household (the second highest rate in the European Union), and the vast majority of charities helping the unemployed surveyed in the report say that they know of families where two or three generations have no one in work.
> One of the charities, Chance UK, said that some children do not understand what work is. Asked what they wanted to be when they grew up, the children said "I want to be famous" or that they wanted to be the "boss" of a gang.


Personally I find the above frightening yet many here seem to want to ignore the problem.



> While some campaigners accuse this Government of being callous for its benefit cap, the truth is there has been a much more damaging welfare cap in these communities for years - an unjust cap on personal potential."


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> Couple of charts..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on 2012 figures. So what does this mean? Simply put, it doesn't pay to work at low levels.
> 
> So what is being done? Labour would simply pay more to those out of work. Tories, raise the starting point where you start paying tax, increasing the incentive to actually work.
> 
> I'll quote an independent think tank The Center for Social Justice from 2013.
> 
> Personally I find the above frightening yet many here seem to want to ignore the problem.


The Centre for Social Justice? HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA So you've dismissed & ignored all the facts & figures from the well respected organisations, scratted around the internet looking for something to fit your confirmation bias & come up with a think tank set up by Ian Duncan Smith. Perfect

And I find it terrifying & utterly depressing that people believe tory lies while thousands are suffering due to their cruel ideological policies!

Oh ive got plenty of relevant meme's for this one


----------



## MyMillie

LIKE LIKE LIKE......LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS POST


noushka05 said:


> The Centre for Social Justice? HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA So you've dismissed & ignored all the facts & figures from the well respected organisations, scratted around the internet looking for something to fit your confirmation bias & come up with a think tank set up by Ian Duncan Smith. Perfect
> 
> And I find it terrifying & utterly depressing that people believe tory lies while thousands are suffering due to their cruel ideological policies!
> 
> Oh ive got plenty of relevant meme's for this one


----------



## MyMillie

patsymatsy said:


> My final word on the matter,
> 
> 
> patsymatsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am finding this all draining and we are all going around in circles.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself this...
> 
> If you had no money, and desperately needed £10 and you HAD to steal from someone.
> 
> Would you (A) steal the £10 from the man with only £12 in his wallet (that is all the money he has in the world to last him a week for food),
> or (B) would you steal the £10 from the man with £10,000 in his wallet which he will spend all on luxuries?
> 
> A "leftie" will always, ALWAYS choose option (B). The Tory party will nearly always go for option (A).
> 
> Knowing full well the rich guy probably wouldn't even miss the £10, but the poor guy would suffer immeasurably losing his £10.
> 
> On that basic premise alone, I will never vote Conservative. I am a great believer in fair play, and doing the right thing.
> 
> I question the moral code of anyone who "votes" to take option (A).
> 
> Now I really am out of this thread (I promise). x
Click to expand...

I feel the same and I'm only reading the responses, starting to make me feel ill ..... and I'll be [email protected]@gered if I allow the bunch of leaches (tories) cause me another stroke, I'm determined to stay alive so they have to carry on paying my meager pension till I'm 90 (theres determination for you), after all, my fortnightly payment I have to live on for everything would probably only be enough to buy Smith a couple of pairs of boxer shorts


----------



## Goblin

noushka05 said:


> The Centre for Social Justice? HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA So you've dismissed & ignored all the facts & figures from the well respected organisations, scratted around the internet looking for something to fit your confirmation bias & come up with a think tank set up by Ian Duncan Smith. Perfect


Unlike you, I haven't dismissed anything. Unlike you I do not dismiss anything which isn't biased in my favour. You obviously support generations being stuck in a benefit trap and have no interest in helping them out of it. Guess that's half the problem. Whereas some are prepared to look at not just the symptoms but the actual disease others are happy just complaining about the symptoms as it serves their political bias.


----------



## Mulish

Goblin said:


> Application is the problem as you are dealing with people, not simply numbers.


Now if only politicians would recognise that, maybe there'd be more of a push towards fairness and empathy in their policies. As it stands, though, everything is decided based on numbers on paper. I sincerely doubt any of the people looking at these bits of paper have ever actually been in the position of being one of the numbers so it makes it easy for them to make the 'tough decisions'.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey

I've dipped in and out of this thread - some of the very, very, very long posts are just too much for me to take in, in this kind of format: I have plenty of politics text books if I want that much information  

Just one thing (and apologies if it's been said before): of course there will be people who use food banks to save their money for things they'd rather buy (I help run one, by the way); of course there will be those who prefer to stay at home rather than work; of course there will be those who have children as a route to money or housing....... but the vast majority are not like that - should we demonise the many due to the behaviour of the few?


----------



## silvi

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Just one thing (and apologies if it's been said before): of course there will be people who use food banks to save their money for things they'd rather buy (I help run one, by the way); of course there will be those who prefer to stay at home rather than work; of course there will be those who have children as a route to money or housing....... but the vast majority are not like that - should we demonise the many due to the behaviour of the few?


Nicely summed up Blaise


----------



## sarybeagle

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I've dipped in and out of this thread - some of the very, very, very long posts are just too much for me to take in, in this kind of format: I have plenty of politics text books if I want that much information
> 
> Just one thing (and apologies if it's been said before): of course there will be people who use food banks to save their money for things they'd rather buy (I help run one, by the way); of course there will be those who prefer to stay at home rather than work; of course there will be those who have children as a route to money or housing....... but the vast majority are not like that - should we demonise the many due to the behaviour of the few?


Wholeheartedly agree. If I could rep I would.
I'm at the mercy of the DWP and demonised is exactly how I feel (thread in health will explain more)


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Chuka withdraws from leadership bid - that didn't last long - what did he expect?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-3274810


----------



## Pointermum

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Chuka withdraws from leadership bid - that didn't last long - what did he expect?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-3274810


:Woot has he lived in a shed for the last 15 years, with the internet and media everything is going to get dragged up and in his face , as you said what did he expect :Facepalm


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Chuka withdraws from leadership bid - that didn't last long - what did he expect?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-3274810


It could be said that he has made a very astute decision.

But we'll see over the coming months.....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

silvi said:


> It could be said that he has made a very astute decision.
> 
> But we'll see over the coming months.....


In what way Silvi? personally I think the job will be a poison chalice for the next holder so perhaps any serious candidates should wait and see what happens.


----------



## silvi

rottiepointerhouse said:


> In what way Silvi? personally I think the job will be a poison chalice for the next holder so perhaps any serious candidates should wait and see what happens.


Exactly 
And Chuka is young enough to wait and to build upon his political credentials in the wings.

But I'm sure that the media definitely feared him.


----------



## Goblin

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> but the vast majority are not like that - should we demonise the many due to the behaviour of the few?


Thing is, you don't hear that argument for the "rich" who work damned hard for what they have. Not everyone is a banker. Let's look at all sides, not simply one.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Nicely put. Not everyone on benefits is a scrounger. Not everyone with a lot of money is an evil bastard. Why must we deal in extremes all the time?


----------



## Satori

Wow, there's going to be a budget in July. These guys are not hanging around.....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4794911c-fb0d-11e4-84f3-00144feab7de.html#axzz3aHd37SPk


----------



## JANICE199

"And I can tell you it will be a budget for working people."

*He and Cameron are focused just on the working people. What about the rest of our society? Oh i forgot, they don't count.:Rage*


----------



## Spellweaver

Ah, but which sort of working people do they mean? Will it be a budget for working people such as bankers, lawyers, company directors, heads of corporations? Or will it be a budget for working people such as NHS workers, police, council workers, care workers, people on the minimum wage?

My guess is that when a Tory politician talks about working people he means the former rather than the latter.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32761566

He says they are going to crack down on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning by the rich.

He also says they need to continue to help businesses create jobs (something that let the labour party down big time) - his comment about productivity is interesting - that in Britain we produce about a quarter less per hour worked than in Germany or the US. They are also going to create a million more apprenticeships for youngsters to learn a trade. I'd call that something for ordinary working people not just the rich.


----------



## Spellweaver

Actually, in the link you gave he said_ three_ million apprenticeships were going to be created, not one million. Now, apprenticeships are all well and good - the pharmacy technician apprenticeship is a fantastic learning opportunity and I hold interviews for apprentice pharmacy technicians every year. But every year a good many of the applications are from people on their third or fourth different apprenticeship because they've completed one, got the qualification, couldn't find work, so applied for another, completed that, couldn't find work so applied for another, and so on and so forth. And I don't know about other professions, but pharmacy technicians cannot practice unless they are registered with the GPhC, and they can only be registered if they are working above a certain number of hours a week. So even if they do have the qualification, it is of no use if they cannot become registered.

For those who do find work, apprenticeships are excellent. But it's heartbreaking for the hard-working kids who end up with their qualification and find that there is no work for them to go to with their qualification. Bit rambling but the point I am trying to make is that apprenticeships need to be linked to jobs - so creating 3 million more is a bit pointless really. Yes, they will take kids off the dole for however long the apprenticeship lasts (the pharmacy technician one is two years) and yes, the kids will end up with a skill or qualification; but at the end of the apprenticeship, if they can't find a job, if they can't become registered with their profession, it's just another person with qualifications who is on JA.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Spellweaver said:


> Actually, in the link you gave he said_ three_ million apprenticeships were going to be created, not one million. Now, apprenticeships are all well and good - the pharmacy technician apprenticeship is a fantastic learning opportunity and I hold interviews for apprentice pharmacy technicians every year. But every year a good many of the applications are from people on their third or fourth different apprenticeship because they've completed one, got the qualification, couldn't find work, so applied for another, completed that, couldn't find work so applied for another, and so on and so forth. And I don't know about other professions, but pharmacy technicians cannot practice unless they are registered with the GPhC, and they can only be registered if they are working above a certain number of hours a week. So even if they do have the qualification, it is of no use if they cannot become registered.
> 
> For those who do find work, apprenticeships are excellent. But it's heartbreaking for the hard-working kids who end up with their qualification and find that there is no work for them to go to with their qualification. Bit rambling but the point I am trying to make is that apprenticeships need to be linked to jobs - so creating 3 million more is a bit pointless really. Yes, they will take kids off the dole for however long the apprenticeship lasts (the pharmacy technician one is two years) and yes, the kids will end up with a skill or qualification; but at the end of the apprenticeship, if they can't find a job, if they can't become registered with their profession, it's just another person with qualifications who is on JA.


Pardon my eyesight - I thought it said one million but you are right it says three so thats even better. Of course we need to make sure there are jobs for them to go to afterwards and so perhaps they need to target the apprenticeships to those trades with shortages of staff rather than those who already have enough but its got to be better than sitting at home doing nothing, learning nothing and becoming dependent on benefits surely?


----------



## Goblin

And here we go again.. only "bankers, lawyers, company directors, heads of corporations" do better, the rest of the tory supporters are all brainwashed as they don't read the Guardian.


----------



## Mulish

I had already left school, got a job and then lost a job (no fault of mine) by the time I was 17. I applied for job after job and got nowhere so did a YT scheme. It paid less than being on the dole (£35 per week compared to £75 per fortnight) and I had to fork out for most of my own travel expenses (and all the smart clothing as it was office based) but, at the end of it, I had an NVQ and it did lead to a full time job - just with a different company to the one who I had trained through as they couldn't afford to pay me a proper wage.

I'm not sure how different an apprenticeship is from a YT scheme but mine did make me feel better about myself and lead to something positive. However there is a great danger of some companies using this as yet another way of getting cheap labour, leaving the participants back at square one once the apprenticeship is over. If that's addressed this is a positive move. If not, I can't help but feel it's just another way of fudging the out of work figures.


----------



## silvi

My nephew is coming up to 16 and may be doing an apprenticeship from this September.
He's a bright lad - he already as A grade GCSEs in Maths and Science and is expected to get a few more A-C grades from the GCSEs he takes in the next few weeks.
But he's dyslexic and just wants to end the constant struggle to read texts and instead 'do a hands on job'.

Because he already had some qualifications, he was offered an early place at the local tech college. He needed to have this place before he applied for apprenticeships as he has to attend college a couple of days a week.
But finding a company to take him on as an apprentice is more of a problem.

Several companies have offered him the apprenticeship, including a couple of major ones. They have told him they would be very happy to take him on, but they are also saying that it is very unlikely they will be able to offer him a job at the end of it.
Kudos to those employers, as they don't have to tell him that. They could just take the government money and get their cheap labour.

In one sense, going to work most days and earning a wage (however small) will help my nephew gain confidence and he could certainly do with the experience of the world of work.
But knowing that he is unlikely to find a job at the end (and, as Spellweaver says, the experience to complete his qualifications) is making him re-think his situation.

He may well go on instead to sixth form college and take A levels, but that will be a struggle, as would going on to take a degree.

But he is of an age where he is thinking seriously of planning for his future and is not sure that this apprenticeship will get him there....

What I would like to see are _real jobs_ being produced; now and in the future. Then kids like my nephew will be given real hope and a goal to work for.

But all the messing around with 'youth schemes' and now 'modern apprenticeships' that all governments have done over recent years doesn't give kids hope. It just offers a way for the government to massage the unemployment figures and say they are doing something....


----------



## JANICE199

Ang2 said:


> So, do you think we are going to be dragged into the streets and whipped? Its being replaced with a British Bill of Rights - you know, one that allows us to deport foreign rapists and murderers!


*I have just been reading an article about this, so sorry my reply is late.But i believe this is well worth the read.*

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ct-michael-gove-repeal-myth-busting?CMP=fb_gu
"

Gove may try another tack, arguing that the Tories are not against human rights at all, but simply want to keep those pesky judges in the European court at bay. But this argument also unravels quickly. The rights in the ECHR are very simple. They include the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country's education system; and, to top things off, the right not to be discriminated against. Which of these rights would you not want? One of the reasons the much-vaunted Tory "British bill of rights" has never seen the light of day is because any proposal that does not match these basic ECHR rights will be torn to shreds.

That only leaves Gove with the shallow argument that our courts are shackled because they are bound to follow the decisions of the European court of human rights. But that argument runs into two fundamental problems. First, the HRA only obliges our courts to "take into account" judgments of the European court; they are not bound by them. Second, it is not the HRA that obliges the UK to respond to the judgments of the European court. It is Article 46(1) of the ECHR itself.
Article 46 states that: "The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties." The UK signed up to that international obligation when it signed the ECHR in the 1950s. Repealing the HRA would have no effect whatsoever on the UK's obligations under Article 46. The only way for the Tories to achieve what they want is for the UK to pull out of the ECHR and, as a consequence, out of the Council of Europe.


----------



## Spellweaver

JANICE199 said:


> *I have just been reading an article about this, so sorry my reply is late.But i believe this is well worth the read.*
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ct-michael-gove-repeal-myth-busting?CMP=fb_gu
> "
> 
> Gove may try another tack, arguing that the Tories are not against human rights at all, but simply want to keep those pesky judges in the European court at bay. But this argument also unravels quickly. The rights in the ECHR are very simple. They include the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country's education system; and, to top things off, the right not to be discriminated against. Which of these rights would you not want? One of the reasons the much-vaunted Tory "British bill of rights" has never seen the light of day is because any proposal that does not match these basic ECHR rights will be torn to shreds.
> 
> That only leaves Gove with the shallow argument that our courts are shackled because they are bound to follow the decisions of the European court of human rights. But that argument runs into two fundamental problems. First, the HRA only obliges our courts to "take into account" judgments of the European court; they are not bound by them. Second, it is not the HRA that obliges the UK to respond to the judgments of the European court. It is Article 46(1) of the ECHR itself.
> Article 46 states that: "The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties." The UK signed up to that international obligation when it signed the ECHR in the 1950s. Repealing the HRA would have no effect whatsoever on the UK's obligations under Article 46. The only way for the Tories to achieve what they want is for the UK to pull out of the ECHR and, as a consequence, out of the Council of Europe.


Very interesting Janice. So the only way Cameron can repeal the Human Rights Act and put his British Rights nonsense in its place is to pull us out of Europe. One little fact he forgot to mention in his manifesto, eh?

As for human rights - I cannot see how anyone in their right minds would want to give up any of the rights listed. Is Liberty so cheap these days that it can be squandered away so easily?


----------



## JANICE199

Spellweaver said:


> Very interesting Janice. So the only way Cameron can repeal the Human Rights Act and put his British Rights nonsense in its place is to pull us out of Europe. One little fact he forgot to mention in his manifesto, eh?
> 
> As for human rights - I cannot see how anyone in their right minds would want to give up any of the rights listed. Is Liberty so cheap these days that it can be squandered away so easily?


*Val, what an eye opener. I would have gladly voted to get out of the EU, but i won't now. Everything about this government is under handed. *


----------



## MyMillie

JANICE199 said:


> *Val, what an eye opener. I would have gladly voted to get out of the EU, but i won't now. Everything about this government is under handed. *


This was exactly my first thoughts Janice!....and I came to same conclusion, just hope many many others who have spent a long time like us with this view to get out of EU get this info before it's too late eh!.... what a conniving bunch of B*****DS the tories are  ..... I'm just so grateful for the ones on here that are really seeing the TRUE picture!....and are the ones who I resonate with!


----------



## rona

As the ECHR was in place in 1950 and we didn't join the European union until 1973, I can see no reason why we cannot still have those same protections in place if we withdraw now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights


----------



## MyMillie

rona said:


> As the ECHR was in place in 1950 and we didn't join the European union until 1973, I can see no reason why we cannot still have those same protections in place if we withdraw now
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights


Really Rona?..... things have changed immensely since those times.... have to say though that I dont trust wiki either, written not just by fact based things, anyone can contribute to it! not naming names though!  Government by any chance  call me paranoid if you wish, is there any wonder I am, all this stuff nowadays makes my head roll


----------



## rona

MyMillie said:


> Really Rona?..... things have changed immensely since those times.... have to say though that I dont trust wiki either, written not just by fact based things, anyone can contribute to it! not naming names though!  Government by any chance  call me paranoid if you wish, is there any wonder I am, all this stuff nowadays makes my head roll


Wiki was just an example, you can find the info anywhere you look.

I must say, for all the concern for the vulnerable, some in social media are scaremongering so much that they are terrifying the vulnerable even more than the government


----------



## chesspiece

JANICE199 said:


> *Val, what an eye opener. I would have gladly voted to get out of the EU, but i won't now. Everything about this government is under handed. *


You could still quite happily vote in a referendum to leave the EU, as that will have no bearing upon the concerns you just mentioned, as the EU and the Council of Europe (which created the ECHR) are two separate organizations. Your vote to leave the EU would not effect UK membership of council of Europe, we joined that organisation 20 years before we joined the EU


----------



## rona

The_ convention of 1950_ is a separate issue

http://echr-online.info/echr-introduction/


----------



## Lurcherlad

patsymatsy said:


> My final word on the matter, I am finding this all draining and we are all going around in circles.
> 
> Ask yourself this...
> 
> If you had no money, and desperately needed £10 and you HAD to steal from someone.
> 
> Would you (A) steal the £10 from the man with only £12 in his wallet (that is all the money he has in the world to last him a week for food),
> or (B) would you steal the £10 from the man with £10,000 in his wallet which he will spend all on luxuries?
> 
> A "leftie" will always, ALWAYS choose option (B). The Tory party will nearly always go for option (A).
> 
> Knowing full well the rich guy probably wouldn't even miss the £10, but the poor guy would suffer immeasurably losing his £10.
> 
> On that basic premise alone, I will never vote Conservative. I am a great believer in fair play, and doing the right thing.
> 
> I question the moral code of anyone who "votes" to take option (A).
> 
> Now I really am out of this thread (I promise). x


Clap Trap


----------



## Lurcherlad

Isn't The Guardian a pro Labour newspaper?

Sir Keir Starmer, KCB, QC is a British politician and barrister. Since the 2015 General Election, he has been the Labour Party Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras.

Just saying


----------



## MyMillie

rona said:


> I must say, for all the concern for the vulnerable, some in social media are scaremongering so much that they are terrifying the vulnerable even more than the government


You maybe right on that in some ways with some sites we read on, *BUT, *all I can go on is my gut instinct what I read and first hand experiences with certain issues, i.e what this government has been doing over the past few of years, I have had my Son come close to wanting to kill himself over his despicable treatment with Atos through a works related accident, I cant begin to tell of the torture that was for me and his Sisters to see, he fell from scaffolding damaging his spine, but they were STILL trying to say he was fit for work FFS... So I know there is "no scaremongering" on that score, people have died through them, thats evident!.....so please forgive me if I truly hate this government on the gross unfair treatment thats been going on!!...to me this totally goes against "human rights" in my eyes, and they got away with it!! so it leaves me with "what else have they got planned"?


----------



## MyMillie

Lurcherlad said:


> Isn't The Guardian a pro Labour newspaper?
> 
> Sir Keir Starmer, KCB, QC is a British politician and barrister. Since the 2015 General Election, he has been the Labour Party Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras.
> 
> Just saying


Oh, so Rupert Murdoch dose'nt "own" eeerm, back the Tories then


----------



## silvi

Lurcherlad said:


> Isn't The Guardian a pro Labour newspaper?
> 
> Sir Keir Starmer, KCB, QC is a British politician and barrister. Since the 2015 General Election, he has been the Labour Party Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras.
> 
> Just saying


I don't understand what your argument is here.
Are you saying that Keir Starmer should not comment on this, even though, as a barrister, he is eminently qualified to do so?

The Guardian is traditionally independent but left of centre. It backed the Lib-Dems in 2010, not Labour.


----------



## Lurcherlad

MyMillie said:


> Oh, so Rupert Murdoch dose'nt "own" eeerm, back the Tories then


More than likely. Just pointing out that when someone is spouting off about something it's helpful to know where their loyalties lie before taking it as gospel. In the end, it's all propaganda


----------



## Lurcherlad

silvi said:


> I don't understand what your argument is here.
> Are you saying that Keir Starmer should not comment on this, even though, as a barrister, he is eminently qualified to do so?
> 
> The Guardian is traditionally independent but left of centre. It backed the Lib-Dems in 2010, not Labour.


 Not at all. But thought it fair to point out his leanings


----------



## Jonescat

Ok - lets point out his leanings.Keir Starmer is an ex Director of Public Prosecutions and well known Human Rights specialist. He has argued successfully that evidence obtained from torture is illegal, that politicians can be prosecuted , and a load of other things that people probably won't like. He is a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath for "services to law and criminal justice". He's a QC and joint head of chambers But hey - he's Labour, so don't believe a word he says.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> As an ex participant in fox-hunting, that's not how I view it Noushka. The animals are currently dug out, shot, trapped and poisoned, sick, or healthy, young or old. Die over days from accidental injury, traffic. Disease. A hunted fox is caught and dead, or it escapes to live another day. Killed by the first hound to snap its neck. I'd like to see CCTV in all abattoirs and live export banned before fox-hunting. Yet they aren't even on the agenda.  I think most people who would vote against fox hunting, were voting against fox killing. If they were asked to support fox poisoning, or fox trapping do you think they would? Look at rabbits and myxi? Is that a better way to go? Sorry, but I can't agree with you. I'd rather see no animal hurt, killed or injured for humans, whether food, pest, or sport, if truth be told, but I can't get up in arms about fox-hunting, when I truly believe we inflict worse on them. It's a shame it's still a political issue. Most people wanted it banned, it got banned, just leave it banned.  Let's as a country discuss other injustices instead.


Foxes are killed by the first hound by a snap to the neck??? No they are not. You're just parroting pro hunt lies Elles. And trying to justify foxhunting by pointing out foxes die in other ways is pretty desperate tbh. Fox hunting is immoral & cruel, killing a sentient creature for fun is sociopathic. The tories will never rest until the ban is repealed. Apparently they intend to repeal in the next 12 months, thats despite 80% of the British public supporting the ban! They have 0 respect for democracy.

Well there certainly are plenty of other injustices to discuss. What a sick & twisted government we're stuck with



cinnamontoast said:


> Former executive director of LACS: he writes in a very balanced manner, I find.
> 
> https://jamesbarrington.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/polls-apart/
> 
> And again, how can people vote on one issue? And no, if you vote for a party, it does NOT make you an advocate of that one issue. That's unfair and simplistic.


What an absolute load of [email protected] from Jimbo as per! 

ETA Ricky Gervais is giving the bloodjunkies more stick tonight lol
*


10:22 PM - 16 May 2015 
Ricky Gervais‏@rickygervais27m27 minutes ago
The only way Fox Hunting would count as vermin control is if the posh twats fell off their horses and broke their necks. #KeepTheBan

1,597 retweets2,223 favorites
*
Some people love animals & think they are worth standing up for. Maybe you'd see where they were coming from if this was about brutalising to a more dynamic species, like say lion or a wolf?. And for me repeaIing hunting bad was one of MANY issues, most of them connected. A government with so little regard for the natural world, climate change or animal welfare was never going to get my vote. Added to that continued demolition by stealth of our NHS, dismantling welfare state, victimisation of the most vulnerable, getting rid of the human rights act. I cant say as ive ever felt more upset or frightened by a government - they terrify me & I'm not exaggerating.



negative creep said:


> Totally agree - the only way you could find a party that totally fits with your own views would be to start one yourself. Otherwise it's a case of picking the one that has the most policies you agree with


Exactly, hence why I could NEVER (not for a zillion £££) vote for the 'Con'servative Party - because I don't agree with any of their policies.



Goblin said:


> Thing is, you don't hear that argument for the "rich" who work damned hard for what they have. Not everyone is a banker. Let's look at all sides, not simply one.


That's the ONLY side you look at lol The only people suffering under this austerity con are the most vulnerable & ordinary working people - austerity only applies to them, so don't worry



Goblin said:


> Unlike you, I haven't dismissed anything. Unlike you I do not dismiss anything which isn't biased in my favour. You obviously support generations being stuck in a benefit trap and have no interest in helping them out of it. Guess that's half the problem. Whereas some are prepared to look at not just the symptoms but the actual disease others are happy just complaining about the symptoms as it serves their political bias.


Unlike you I get my info from valid sources. While you get yours from the CSJ lmfao Did you get 'generations stuck in a benefit trap' from CSJ as well? or was it the Torygraph? hahaa


----------



## noushka05

Lurcherlad said:


> More than likely. Just pointing out that when someone is spouting off about something it's helpful to know where their loyalties lie before taking it as gospel. In the end, it's all propaganda


If you only trust right wing opinion Ken Clark warned against scrapping the human rights act on his retirement. (its an article in the guardian I'm afraid lol) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/15/ken-clarke-exits-human-rights-warning-tories

_Ken Clarke has issued a strong warning that his retirement from the cabinet and the departure of the attorney general Dominic Grieve must not presage the Conservatives backing the UK's departure from the European convention on human rights.

He said such a move would be unthinkable, adding that the convention was the bedrock of UK values for which Britain had fought the second world war._

_In a strong warning to his party, he said: "I personally think it is unthinkable to leave the European convention on human rights. It was drafted by British lawyers after the second world war to protect the values we fought the war for. Now it is a long way from the war, but members of the European council covered by the convention include Russia and Belarus and so on. It is the way we uphold the values we strive for which are the rule of law, individual liberty, justice for all, regardless of gender. The convention is the bedrock of that."

He added: "A slightly absurd debate takes place in this country. We are occasionally taken to the European court in Strasbourg but we win 98% of the cases because of our human rights record. We only lose 2% of cases and all these mad mullahs that the press love to vilify and blame for our terrorist problems - which is a somewhat uncomplicated way of analysing the situation - are thought to win in Strasbourg. Well, we have won all the cases in Strasbourg_


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Spellweaver said:


> Very interesting Janice. So the only way Cameron can repeal the Human Rights Act and put his British Rights nonsense in its place is to pull us out of Europe. One little fact he forgot to mention in his manifesto, eh?
> 
> As for human rights - I cannot see how anyone in their right minds would want to give up any of the rights listed. Is Liberty so cheap these days that it can be squandered away so easily?


I thought it went without saying that the Human Rights Act cannot be repealed while we're in Europe?


----------



## chesspiece

Shoshannah said:


> I thought it went without saying that the Human Rights Act cannot be repealed while we're in Europe?


Incorrect

Common misconception of both pro and anti human in this discussion

The council of Europe created the European court of human rights.
We joined council Europe in the 50s.

We joined European union 1973.
(It was called the EEC then).
This is a completely different organization


----------



## chesspiece

chesspiece said:


> Incorrect
> 
> Common misconception of both pro and anti human in this discussion
> 
> The council of Europe created the European court of human rights.
> We joined council Europe in the 50s.
> 
> We joined European union 1973.
> (It was called the EEC then).
> This is a completely different organization


PS _ council of Europe has 47 members including lots of eastern European countries even from the times of communism


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> I could NEVER (not for a zillion £££) vote for the 'Con'servative Party - because I don't agree with any of their policies.


Understand your frustration but, really there is not one single Conservative Party policy you agree with?........


Extension of the right-to-buy scheme to housing association tenants in England
Plans to build 200,000 starter homes
Ensuring all people who work 30 hours per week on the minimum wage pay no income tax
Doubling free childcare allowance for three and four-year-olds to 30 hours
Increasing the inheritance tax threshold on family homes to £1m by 2017
No above-inflation rises in rail fares until 2020
An extra £8bn a year for the NHS by 2020
Opening 500 more free schools
An EU referendum by 2017
Running a surplus by 2018 so that the UK "starts to pay down its debts"
No rise in VAT, national insurance contributions or income tax
A crackdown on tax evasion and the "aggressive" avoidance of tax
Creating a "Northern Powerhouse" through investment
Spending £100bn on infrastructure in the next Parliament
Achieving full employment by helping businesses create two million extra jobs over the course of the next Parliament
Creating 3 million new apprenticeships
Cutting £10bn of red tape over the next Parliament
Giving businesses "the most competitive taxes of any major economy"
Replacing Jobseeker's Allowance for 18-21 year-olds with a Youth Allowance time-limited to six months. After that, they will have to take an apprenticeship or traineeship or do community work to claim benefits
Requiring 40% of those entitled to take part in strike ballots to vote for a strike before industrial action can be held
Requiring companies with more than 250 employees to publish their gender pay gap - the difference between average pay for male and female employees
Increasing the minimum wage to £6.70 by the autumn and to £8 by the end of the decade
Investing £6.9bn in the UK's research infrastructure up to 2021
"Near universal superfast broadband" for rural areas
Taking everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of income tax
Passing a new law that would mean all those working 30 hours a week and earning the minimum wage will not pay income tax on earnings
Raising the threshold for the 40p rate of tax so that nobody under £50,000 pays the rate
A freeze on working age benefits for two years from April 2016 (exemptions for disability and pensioner benefits)
Lowering the benefit cap from £26,000 to £23,000 (with exemptions for those receiving Disability Living Allowance or the Personal Independence Payment)
Giving working parents of three and four-year-olds 30 hours of free childcare a week
Negotiating new EU rules so people will have to be earning in the UK for four years before they can claim tax credits and child benefits
Introducing a four-year residency requirement for social housing for EU migrants
Ending the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits
Requiring EU jobseekers who have not found a job within six months to leave
Insist new EU member states' citizens do not have free movement rights "until their economies have converged much more closely with existing member states"
Cap the level of skilled migration from outside the EU at 20,700
Extend the "deport first, appeal later" principle to cover all immigration appeals and judicial reviews, apart from asylum cases
Investing £7bn over the course of the next Parliament to provide "good school places"
Opening at least 500 new free schools and turning failing schools into academies
Protecting the schools budget; increasing the amount spent on schools as the number of pupils increases
Scrapping the cap on higher education student numbers
Providing same-day GP appointments for over 75s
The right to a named GP
Integration of health and social care systems
Keep major museums and galleries free to enter
Freeze the BBC licence fee
Guarantee those who work for a big company and the public sector entitlement to Volunteering Leave for three days per year
End taxpayer-funded six-figure pay-offs for the best-paid public sector workers
Reduce number of MPs to 600
Introduce English votes for English laws
Give English MPs a veto over matters only affecting England
Implement the recommendations of the Smith Commission, set up to consider new powers for Scotland after the independence referendum
Increase some powers for the Welsh Assembly
Devolve corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly
Toughen sentencing and reform the prison system
Create a Victims' Law that will enshrine key rights for victims, including the right to make a personal statement and have it read in court before sentencing and before parole hearings
Scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights
Strengthen counter-terrorism powers
Create new Extremism Disruption Orders, which the party says would help target those trying to radicalise young people on social media
Increasing the inheritance tax threshold for married couples and civil partners to £1m
Continuing to increase the state pension through the triple lock system, meaning it rises by at least 2.5%
Capping charges on residential care
Introducing a single-tier pension
Protecting pensioner benefits like free bus passes and the winter fuel payment
Protect the UK economy from further integration with the eurozone while reclaiming other powers from Europe
Uphold commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international development
Maintain the size of the regular armed services and not reduce the Army to below 82,000
Expand armed forces reserves to 35,000
Retain Trident and build a new a new fleet of nuclear submarines
Giving Parliament a free vote on repeal of the Hunting Act
Ending any new public subsidy for onshore wind farms
...


----------



## Spellweaver

Shoshannah said:


> I thought it went without saying that the Human Rights Act cannot be repealed while we're in Europe?


But Cameron is pulling the wool over people's eyes (well, no surprise there!). He's been talking about introducing a new British Bill of Rights with no mention of pulling out of Europe for some time now: This was at the Conservative Party Conference last year.

_"Cameron vows to scrap Human Rights Act, civil liberties groups outraged
Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to scrap the Human Rights Act if the Conservatives are re-elected in Britain's 2015 general election. The controversial proposal has stoked the ire of civil rights groups across the nation.Speaking on the final day of the Conservative Party's four-day conference, Cameron pledged to do away with the Act and replace it with a British "bill of rights. However, the prime minister did not explicitly confirm that a future Conservative government would withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights - a move that would have far-reaching repercussions for Britain's relationship with Europe."_
http://rt.com/uk/192264-human-rights-scrap-cameron/

In other words, he is saying that he will introduce a new British BIll of Rights whilst not pulling out of the ECHR. What he is *not* saying is that, even if he does this, unless we pull out of europe, Britain is still a signatory to the ECHR and British citizens or European Citizens living in Britain* STILL* have the right to appeal to the ECHR and have their case heard.

_"Many in his party have called for a Tory Government to pull out of the ECHR altogether but Mr Cameron has not gone that far. Instead he said a Tory only Government would introduce a new British Bill of Rights.
However as long as Britain remains a signatory to the ECHR it would still be open to members of the public or group to directly petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg to hear their case."_
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-plans-to-scrap-human-rights-act-9767435.html

So all his rhetoric about preventing the ECHR stopping Britain deporting suspected terrorists is just that - rhetoric. How many Tory voters fell for that rhetoric, I wonder? And how many undecided voters believed that rhetoric and allowed it to tip the scales into their voting Tory?


----------



## MyMillie

SATORI..... I will believe all that when I see it!  In the meantime I wont be holding my breath


----------



## JANICE199

Spellweaver said:


> But Cameron is pulling the wool over people's eyes (well, no surprise there!). He's been talking about introducing a new British Bill of Rights with no mention of pulling out of Europe for some time now: This was at the Conservative Party Conference last year.
> 
> _"Cameron vows to scrap Human Rights Act, civil liberties groups outraged
> Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to scrap the Human Rights Act if the Conservatives are re-elected in Britain's 2015 general election. The controversial proposal has stoked the ire of civil rights groups across the nation.Speaking on the final day of the Conservative Party's four-day conference, Cameron pledged to do away with the Act and replace it with a British "bill of rights. However, the prime minister did not explicitly confirm that a future Conservative government would withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights - a move that would have far-reaching repercussions for Britain's relationship with Europe."_
> http://rt.com/uk/192264-human-rights-scrap-cameron/
> 
> In other words, he is saying that he will introduce a new British BIll of Rights whilst not pulling out of the ECHR. What he is *not* saying is that, even if he does this, unless we pull out of europe, Britain is still a signatory to the ECHR and British citizens or European Citizens living in Britain* STILL* have the right to appeal to the ECHR and have their case heard.
> 
> _"Many in his party have called for a Tory Government to pull out of the ECHR altogether but Mr Cameron has not gone that far. Instead he said a Tory only Government would introduce a new British Bill of Rights.
> However as long as Britain remains a signatory to the ECHR it would still be open to members of the public or group to directly petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg to hear their case."_
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-plans-to-scrap-human-rights-act-9767435.html
> 
> So all his rhetoric about preventing the ECHR stopping Britain deporting suspected terrorists is just that - rhetoric. How many Tory voters fell for that rhetoric, I wonder? And how many undecided voters believed that rhetoric and allowed it to tip the scales into their voting Tory?


*My brain hurts, so please help me out here Val. So was i right or wrong to think i should want to stay in the EU. For this purpose?*


----------



## Satori

MyMillie said:


> In the meantime I wont be holding my breath


Oh, go on.


----------



## Satori

Spellweaver said:


> In other words, he is saying that he will introduce a new British BIll of Rights whilst not pulling out of the ECHR. What he is *not* saying is that, even if he does this, unless we pull out of europe, Britain is still a signatory to the ECHR and British citizens or European Citizens living in Britain* STILL* have the right to appeal to the ECHR and have their case heard.


I don't get it. What's the problem with that?


----------



## chesspiece

JANICE199 said:


> *My brain hurts, so please help me out here Val. So was i right or wrong to think i should want to stay in the EU. For this purpose?*


No
As the European court of human rights was created from the European convention on human rights.this was a convention created just after world war two by an organisation called Council of Europe, also just after the war
The EEC/EU didnt exist then

There are some connections between the EU and the council of Europe/ECHR
but the EU is a separate organisation and doesn't run the ECHR.
In fact, the EU had planned to formally become a member of the ECHR, but then changed their mind and decided not to join


----------



## MyMillie

Satori said:


> Oh, go on.


Oooo I wont do that for any Tori....noteven for saTORI :Mooning


----------



## JANICE199

*Ok again i am baffled. Just been reading, again, about this human rights act. I have come to the conclusion, ( i think), that this is all a waste of time.*
*Cameron can't do away with it, so why is he saying we have another bill of rights? Oh my brain hurts lol.*


----------



## Colliebarmy

I had a good saturday, 9am - 7pm, left just after the first wave of hen parties hit town (for my own safety)

better than politics


----------



## chesspiece

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok again i am baffled. Just been reading, again, about this human rights act. I have come to the conclusion, ( i think), that this is all a waste of time.*
> *Cameron can't do away with it, so why is he saying we have another bill of rights? Oh my brain hurts lol.*


Fair point

Just console yourself with the fact you now know you can be happy in the knowledge if you vote yes in a referendum to leave the EU you aren't voting to abandon the European convention/court of human rights


----------



## JANICE199

chesspiece said:


> Fair point
> 
> Just console yourself with the fact you now know you can be happy in the knowledge if you vote yes in a referendum to leave the EU you aren't voting to abandon the European convention/court of human rights


*Thank you. I will do some more reading on the subject. *


----------



## Spellweaver

chesspiece said:


> No
> As the European court of human rights was created from the European convention on human rights.this was a convention created just after world war two by an organisation called Council of Europe, also just after the war
> The EEC/EU didnt exist then
> 
> There are some connections between the EU and the council of Europe/ECHR
> but the EU is a separate organisation and doesn't run the ECHR.
> In fact, the EU had planned to formally become a member of the ECHR, but then changed their mind and decided not to join


But that's not the whole story, is it? Under the Treaty of Lisbon , accession of the EU to the ECHR became a legal obligation.

_"The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights constitutes a major step in the development of human rights in Europe. Discussed since the late 1970s, the accession became a legal obligation under the Treaty of Lisbon._"
http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/european-union/-/asset_publisher/rVgLogoL9D2G/content/accession-to-the-european-convention-on-human-rights?inheritRedirect=false&redirect=http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/european-union?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_rVgLogoL9D2G&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=3

And added to this, the two organisations are closely-linked partners, and have a Memorandum of Understanding between them which includes Human Rights

_"Co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union is currently governed by the 2007  Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two organisations. The MoU confirms the role of the Council of Europe as the benchmark for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe, stipulates the need for coherence between the two Organisations' legal norms in the fields of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and encourages the Council of Europe and the European Union to work together even more closely in the future."_
http://www.coe.int/t/der/EU_en.asp

This is a link to the document itself
http://www.coe.int/t/der/docs/MoU_EN.pdf



JANICE199 said:


> *My brain hurts, so please help me out here Val. So was i right or wrong to think i should want to stay in the EU. For this purpose?*


The two are spearate organisations but are so interlinked by various policies and the Memorandum of Understanding that the reality is that it would be virtually impossible to withdraw from the Council of Europe (ie what we would have to do to repeal its Human Rights law) without also leaving Europe.



Satori said:


> I don't get it. What's the problem with that?


Cameron fooling the people into thinking he can introduce a British Bill of Rights that will usurp the ECHR. It won't. THe ECHR will still be the ruling body while ever we are in the EU.


----------



## chesspiece

Yes, but Janice question was if she voted to leave the EU, is she voting to leave the ECHR? The answer to which is no, as they are separate organizations.

Both organizations do have connections, but the EU turned down the option to become a formal member of the ECHR

To join the EU a nation has to demonstrate a commitment to human rights. This doesn't specify joining the ECHR, but it is considered that membership of this demonstrates this commitment.
And in any case, this issue does not apply to older original members of the EU prior to the great of Lisbon
This includes the UK.

Its just an untested opinion that if you leave the ECHR/council of Europe, you have to leave the EU. (Albeit the opposite is untrue)
There are several leading legal experts whom disagree with this
Can't remember names right now, but one was Tony Blair government Lord chancellor, another is a guy whom used to be a judge in the European court of human rights and is now a lecturer in human rights law in a British university


----------



## Elles

I didn't vote Conservative and I wouldn't vote to bring back fox-hunting. I've been fox-hunting, more than once, I know what happens. It annoys me that's it's brought up as a distraction, or even that it's thought of as important. It's not important. Now it's gone, it's gone and it should stay gone. People still go hunting, more than ever, they just don't hunt foxes. 

The majority of folk who went fox-hunting didn't go to watch a fox die, they went to ride in a group over countryside they don't usually get access to. They still do that. If they brought in another vote,you'd probably find that even people who used to go fox-hunting vote against it, or don't vote at all. They were worried they'd lose their leisure pastime as farmers get out their guns and yell 'Gerroff my land!' at them and restrict them to the roads, where drivers yell at them 'Gerroff our roads!'. That didn't happen, they still get to go out. You could be reading my posts back to front. 

Foxes still die and often in worse ways than when they were hunted. However, people still get what they wanted from fox-hunting, the countryside didn't suddenly lose a load of money and bring those who hunted to the depths of despair and poverty. There's no argument for it. So I would agree, anyone who desperately wants fox-hunting back, can only want it in order to kill foxes, whether for blood or tradition and they'd be a very small minority. Everything else remained pretty much the same as before. So why is it even an issue? The fact that Cameron even thinks it's an important issue, so important it needs us all to vote on it again, is bloody ridiculous. It's not an issue. Leave it alone. (to Cameron, not you Noush). UKIP I can understand using it, they're a small party who need to get people fired up, but Cameron and the Tories should know better and stick to what's important, not what's controversial.:Rage

So you see, although I don't think foxes suffered as much more from hunting as you do, when push comes to shove we still agree.  You should feel heartened that someone who has hunted and didn't think there was anything wrong with it in the general scheme of things, doesn't want to see it come back and the reasons why I believe people I know who also hunted wouldn't want to see it come back either. We might be selfish, but if I'm right, they'll never get hunting back again. More people go hunting now than they did when they did kill foxes. Most people don't want to see blood and drag hunting existed before the fox-hunting ban, so not everyone who hunts want to see a fox killed and I doubt there's enough support for it to come back.


----------



## chesspiece

Spellweaver said:


> Rights
> 
> Cameron fooling the people into thinking he can introduce a British Bill of Rights that will usurp the ECHR. It won't. THe ECHR will still be the ruling body while ever we are in the EU.


No, the ECHR will still be the ruling body while we are member of european convention on human rights and the council of Europe
The EU is a separate organisation, and recently chose not to join the ECHR

Many people that are knee jerk anti Europe come out with this mistaken idea, by making comments such as we shouldn't have the EU bossing us around with these human rights rulings


----------



## chesspiece

Spellweaver said:


> Rights
> 
> Cameron fooling the people into thinking he can introduce a British Bill of Rights that will usurp the ECHR. It won't. THe ECHR will still be the ruling body while ever we are in the EU.


No, the ECHR will still be the ruling body while we are member of european convention on human rights and the council of Europe
The EU is a separate organisation, and recently chose not to join the ECHR

Many people that are knee jerk anti Europe come out with this mistaken idea, by making comments such as we shouldn't have the EU bossing us around with these human rights rulings


----------



## rona

This may help to explain it
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu...ects-draft-agreement-eu-accession-echr-310983


----------



## silvi

rona said:


> This may help to explain it
> http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu...ects-draft-agreement-eu-accession-echr-310983


Thanks Rona.
And I've just done my head in as well reading that .

Having lived for some time in another EU country where some of the 'rules' were sometimes given scant regard (as were demands from other EU members that this situation be amended), I know it is very possible for individual countries to twist these complex agreements to get what they want out of the system - hence the reticence by several member countries to abide by European Court of Human Rights mandates, but not to the mandatory European Convention.

Interestingly, that is from the same publication - EurActiv - that the original article comes from:

Helpful tips for the Tories

An excerpt:


> Any move to curb the powers of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg impacts directly on the question of EU membership. Every member state is obliged to respect the European Convention on Human Rights as a general principle of EU law; the EU's own Charter of Fundamental Rights, binding in full on the UK, is based on the ECHR; and the EU is itself in the process of seeking to accede to the ECHR. There is therefore no escape for the UK (if it stays in the EU) from the external supervision of the Strasbourg court or from judicial review by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.


Now, admittedly that article was written by Andrew Duff - a Liberal Democrat politician and a former member of the European Parliament.

But it does point out that trying to subvert the rules by relying on the confusion between laws will not be possible if Britain remains in the EU. And the article's hope that an EU referendum will lead to dissension and confusion within the Tory party can only be good I reckon .


----------



## chesspiece

silvi said:


> Thanks Rona.
> And I've just done my head in as well reading that .
> 
> Having lived for some time in another EU country where some of the 'rules' were sometimes given scant regard (as were demands from other EU members that this situation be amended), I know it is very possible for individual countries to twist these complex agreements to get what they want out of the system - hence the reticence by several member countries to abide by European Court of Human Rights mandates, but not to the mandatory European Convention.
> 
> Interestingly, that is from the same publication - EurActiv - that the original article comes from:
> 
> Helpful tips for the Tories
> 
> He is kind of right
> But being a lib dem with his pro ECHR agenda, he is overstating and understating somewhat
> Its true Lisbon treaty allowed for EU to apply to join ECHR in its own right, which they duly did
> However, last December the Court of Justice of the EU blocked the application
> Secondly, EU treaties stipulate that members states must have commitment to human rights.
> Applicant states must show this to join EU
> There is no written stipulation that this means membership of the ECHR, although it is stated that membership is proof you have this commitment
> But this advice was added at the time in regards to east European applicant states, and didnt apply to existing members
> The upshot is, all legal expert opinion states that countries like the UK or France could leave the ECHR and still remain members of EU, as long as they demonstrate human rights laws and rules, so a domestic bill of rights modelled upon the ECHR qualifies
> 
> Besides, of course, some would argue if leaving the ECHR meant getting kicked out EU, that's a plus point LOL
> 
> An excerpt:
> 
> Now, admittedly that article was written by Andrew Duff - a Liberal Democrat politician and a former member of the European Parliament.
> 
> But it does point out that trying to subvert the rules by relying on the confusion between laws will not be possible if Britain remains in the EU. And the article's hope that an EU referendum will lead to dissension and confusion within the Tory party can only be good I reckon .


----------



## chesspiece

He is kind of right
But being a lib dem with his pro ECHR agenda, he is overstating and understating somewhat
Its true Lisbon treaty allowed for EU to apply to join ECHR in its own right, which they duly did
However, last December the Court of Justice of the EU blocked the application
Secondly, EU treaties stipulate that members states must have commitment to human rights.
Applicant states must show this to join EU
There is no written stipulation that this means membership of the ECHR, although it is stated that membership is proof you have this commitment
But this advice was added at the time in regards to east European applicant states, and didnt apply to existing members
The upshot is, all legal expert opinion states that countries like the UK or France could leave the ECHR and still remain members of EU, as long as they demonstrate human rights laws and rules, so a domestic bill of rights modelled upon the ECHR qualifies


----------



## silvi

chesspiece said:


> He is kind of right
> But being a lib dem with his pro ECHR agenda, he is overstating and understating somewhat
> Its true Lisbon treaty allowed for EU to apply to join ECHR in its own right, which they duly did
> However, last December the Court of Justice of the EU blocked the application
> Secondly, EU treaties stipulate that members states must have commitment to human rights.
> Applicant states must show this to join EU
> There is no written stipulation that this means membership of the ECHR, although it is stated that membership is proof you have this commitment
> But this advice was added at the time in regards to east European applicant states, and didnt apply to existing members
> The upshot is, all legal expert opinion states that countries like the UK or France could leave the ECHR and still remain members of EU, as long as they demonstrate human rights laws and rules, so a domestic bill of rights modelled upon the ECHR qualifies


Yes, that's how I read it too (including his pro-EU and anti-Tory stance) 

Will be interesting (if worrying as well) to see how all of this is presented to the electorate.
Because up to now, unless we delve deep into the various laws and agreements, most of us have been left very much in the dark.


----------



## Spellweaver

Hel


chesspiece said:


> He is kind of right
> But being a lib dem with his pro ECHR agenda, he is overstating and understating somewhat
> Its true Lisbon treaty allowed for EU to apply to join ECHR in its own right, which they duly did
> However, last December the Court of Justice of the EU blocked the application
> Secondly, EU treaties stipulate that members states must have commitment to human rights.
> Applicant states must show this to join EU
> There is no written stipulation that this means membership of the ECHR, although it is stated that membership is proof you have this commitment
> But this advice was added at the time in regards to east European applicant states, and didnt apply to existing members
> The upshot is, all legal expert opinion states that countries like the UK or France could leave the ECHR and still remain members of EU, as long as they demonstrate human rights laws and rules, *so a domestic bill of rights modelled upon the ECHR *qualifies


But in all probability the British Bill of Rights is not going to be modelled upon the ECHR. Surely the point of Cameron wanting his own bill is that he doesn't agree with the ECHR? Therefore he is unlikely to be able to demonstrate an adequate bill of human rights. Therefore Briain is unlikely to be able to to leave the ECHR and still be a member of the EU.


----------



## chesspiece

Spellweaver said:


> Hel
> 
> But in all probability the British Bill of Rights is not going to be modelled upon the ECHR. Surely the point of Cameron wanting his own bill is that he doesn't agree with the ECHR? Therefore he is unlikely to be able to demonstrate an adequate bill of human rights. Therefore Briain is unlikely to be able to to leave the ECHR and still be a member of the EU.


Why wouldn't he model it on the ECHR?
But it doesn't have to be
A member just has to show commitment to human rights.
This could be shown thru various legislation
There is no regulation that exists in the EU that says if the UK leaves ECHR they have to leave EU


----------



## silvi

Spellweaver said:


> Hel
> 
> But in all probability the British Bill of Rights is not going to be modelled upon the ECHR. Surely the point of Cameron wanting his own bill is that he doesn't agree with the ECHR? Therefore he is unlikely to be able to demonstrate an adequate bill of human rights. Therefore Briain is unlikely to be able to to leave the ECHR and still be a member of the EU.


I still wonder how much of the proposed British Bill of Rights was Tory propoganda and electioneering and how different it will be after full discussion?
Not saying it's a good thing - moving away from the ECHR is not. It will also allow small sub clauses to be sneaked in (such as on national security) which could affect us all negatively.

But I'm thinking that this whole issue is still very much in the 'thrashing out' stage and they had not given clear consideration of all the issues which could arise.

The best outcome would be that the whole issue is allowed to disappear.
But with a Tory Government with a majority (which, I suspect, was not considered when the British Bill of Rights was first suggested), I doubt now that a disappearance will be allowed happen.


----------



## chesspiece

silvi said:


> Yes, that's how I read it too (including his pro-EU and anti-Tory stance)
> 
> Will be interesting (if worrying as well) to see how all of this is presented to the electorate.
> Because up to now, unless we delve deep into the various laws and agreements, most of us have been left very much in the dark.


Too true
I made a point of studying and researching this for the past year.
The reason I did that is simply because anti ECHR folk kept saying they want out of the ECHR rules as they are sick of being bossed around by the EU and pro ECHR folk kept saying we cant leave the ECHR as we are member of the EU.
When the ECHR is completely different organization to the EU!
Ironically, sometimes pros will complain about antis (correctly) for erroneous knee jerk anti something with the word Europe in it statements, then go and make the same factual confusion themselves, as it suits there agenda.
As if the idea that leaving the ECHR equalling getting kicked out the EU would even persuade the general public to their cause, LOL
If this were true, people would be saying in that case, let's leave the ECHR then!


----------



## chesspiece

silvi said:


> I still wonder how much of the proposed British Bill of Rights was Tory propoganda and electioneering and how different it will be after full discussion?
> Not saying it's a good thing - moving away from the ECHR is not. It will also allow small sub clauses to be sneaked in (such as on national security) which could affect us all negatively.
> 
> But I'm thinking that this whole issue is still very much in the 'thrashing out' stage and they had not given clear consideration of all the issues which could arise.
> 
> The best outcome would be that the whole issue is allowed to disappear.
> But with a Tory Government with a majority (which, I suspect, was not considered when the British Bill of Rights was first suggested), I doubt now that a disappearance will be allowed happen.


The ECHR already has such derogations itself already, so that would be no different if they did include such get out sub clauses


----------



## Spellweaver

chesspiece said:


> Why wouldn't he model it on the ECHR?
> But it doesn't have to be
> A member just has to show commitment to human rights.
> This could be shown thru various legislation
> There is no regulation that exists in the EU that says if the UK leaves ECHR they have to leave EU


T&T, I was merely responding to your last post where you said:



chesspiece said:


> The upshot is, all legal expert opinion states that countries like the UK or France could leave the ECHR and still remain members of EU, as long as they demonstrate human rights laws and rules, so a domestic bill of rights modelled upon the ECHR qualifies


and pointing out that there would be no point in modelling a domestic bill of rights on the ECHR model - why not just keep the original? And as the Tories obviously don't want to keep the original because it gives ordinary people far too many rights for their liking, they are unlikely to want to model it on the original.


----------



## silvi

chesspiece said:


> The ECHR already has such derogations itself already, so that would be no different if they did include such get out sub clauses


Yes I know this from living in Spain and watching how they deal with certain agreements.

But if that's the case, why bother to propose a whole new ('different') Bill of Rights?
If not just to make an electoral point....?

Edit: just seen Spellweaver's post and yes, there is another reason......


----------



## chesspiece

I dont know how you reach that conclusion?
As the government have stated their motivation isn't because they disagree with having human rights law, they just want our courts to run them
However, what you say is one way of looking at it
In any case, the upshot is that it is untrue that leaving the ECHR also means leaving the EU, this whole ECHR-EU connection is just erroneous information that both pro and anti ECHR proponents put out there for their own purposes
The UK just has to demonstrate commitment to human rights
This can be achieved thru various means, including the ECHR
It can also include domestic laws and the various other international treaties were are party to, such as UN ones
And the ECHR has get out clauses or derogation for all member states anyway, and even allows for member states to have their own specific opt outs for certain articles, such is the case for Greece, Turkey, UK, and Switzerland


----------



## Satori

Spellweaver said:


> Cameron fooling the people into thinking he can introduce a British Bill of Rights that will usurp the ECHR. It won't. THe ECHR will still be the ruling body while ever we are in the EU.


Not if we pass legislation in the UK the effect of which is that we can ignore ECHR rulings.


----------



## silvi

Satori said:


> Not if we pass legislation in the UK the effect of which is that we can ignore ECHR rulings.


Which in actual fact makes the whole situation appear worse for those worried about what will happen to our human rights.
(and more of what some call 'scaremongering' on social media).

I just wonder how many Tory politicians really understand all the ramifications of of what Cameron has promised to achieve, and more importantly, how many politicians from other parties really understand what it is possible to 'achieve' here......


----------



## JANICE199

*I can't help thinking this. Now from what i have read even if Cameron repeals the human rights act, we as citizens of Europe can still use that act.*
*Now is this right, and if so, what is Cameron playing at?*


----------



## Spellweaver

Satori said:


> Not if we pass legislation in the UK the effect of which is that we can ignore ECHR rulings.


Only if we want to leave Europe. If we want to stay in Europe and not abide by the ECHR, we have to replace the ECHR Act with something similar. And no matter how many times T&T - sorry, Chesspiece he's calling himself now - tries to deny it, the only kind of British Bill of Human Rights that will suffice is one that will be so similar to the ECHR Act that it would make no difference. And if we stay in Europe, as Europeans we have the right to take a case to the ECHR whatever our if we feel our human rights have been denied, whatever our member country says.


----------



## MyMillie

Spellweaver said:


> Only if we want to leave Europe. If we want to stay in Europe and not abide by the ECHR, we have to replace the ECHR Act with something similar. And no matter how many times T&T - sorry, Chesspiece he's calling himself now - tries to deny it, the only kind of British Bill of Human Rights that will suffice is one that will be so similar to the ECHR Act that it would make no difference. And if we stay in Europe, as Europeans we have the right to take a case to the ECHR whatever our if we feel our human rights have been denied, whatever our member country says.


YES YES and YES!!


----------



## Blaise in Surrey

MyMillie said:


> YES YES and YES!!


Exactly!


----------



## chesspiece

JANICE199 said:


> *I can't help thinking this. Now from what i have read even if Cameron repeals the human rights act, we as citizens of Europe can still use that act.*
> *Now is this right, and if so, what is Cameron playing at?*


Cameron is just being confused and hasn't thought it thru
The ECHR has been abused, but its quite easy to reform the ECHR and the HRA as it is
he has also forgotten membership of the ECHR is also part of all thr devolution arrangements and northern Ireland peace treaty
So under present suggestions, we'd have differently laws throughout UK!
And the new bill of rights would be similar to the ECHR anyway!
Other wise we'd have to leave ECHR/ COUNCIL of Europe
We also have treaty membership arrangements with the UN and the Court of Justice of thr EU.
SO any new law has tp satisfy them also
Its bit of pointless exercise really, all he has to do is amend what's there already
The ECHR allows specific opt outs for specific nations anyway and the ECHR judgements aren't legally binding anyway, its the British supreme court that does that


----------



## Colliebarmy

Cameron cant repeal any AOP or EU law, he might WANT to but others have to vote on it

In the case of the AOP that means the Lords........including Lord Jenner, well known dementia stricken paedo....

nice


----------



## chesspiece

Colliebarmy said:


> Cameron cant repeal any AOP or EU law, he might WANT to but others have to vote on it
> 
> In the case of the AOP that means the Lords........including Lord Jenner, well known dementia stricken paedo....
> 
> nice


Good point!

AOP?


----------



## Satori

^ I guess 'Act of Parliament'? But then the statement about needing the votes of the House of Lords wouldn't be true.


----------



## chesspiece

Satori said:


> ^ I guess 'Act of Parliament'? But then the statement about needing the votes of the House of Lords wouldn't be true.


Cheers

True
If the lords block it the commons just enacts the parliament act
Will be a problem with the devolved parliaments though


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> I didn't vote Conservative and I wouldn't vote to bring back fox-hunting. I've been fox-hunting, more than once, I know what happens. It annoys me that's it's brought up as a distraction, or even that it's thought of as important. It's not important. Now it's gone, it's gone and it should stay gone. People still go hunting, more than ever, they just don't hunt foxes.
> 
> The majority of folk who went fox-hunting didn't go to watch a fox die, they went to ride in a group over countryside they don't usually get access to. They still do that. If they brought in another vote,you'd probably find that even people who used to go fox-hunting vote against it, or don't vote at all. They were worried they'd lose their leisure pastime as farmers get out their guns and yell 'Gerroff my land!' at them and restrict them to the roads, where drivers yell at them 'Gerroff our roads!'. That didn't happen, they still get to go out. You could be reading my posts back to front.
> 
> Foxes still die and often in worse ways than when they were hunted. However, people still get what they wanted from fox-hunting, the countryside didn't suddenly lose a load of money and bring those who hunted to the depths of despair and poverty. There's no argument for it. So I would agree, anyone who desperately wants fox-hunting back, can only want it in order to kill foxes, whether for blood or tradition and they'd be a very small minority. Everything else remained pretty much the same as before. So why is it even an issue? The fact that Cameron even thinks it's an important issue, so important it needs us all to vote on it again, is bloody ridiculous. It's not an issue. Leave it alone. (to Cameron, not you Noush). UKIP I can understand using it, they're a small party who need to get people fired up, but Cameron and the Tories should know better and stick to what's important, not what's controversial.:Rage
> 
> So you see, although I don't think foxes suffered as much more from hunting as you do, when push comes to shove we still agree.  You should feel heartened that someone who has hunted and didn't think there was anything wrong with it in the general scheme of things, doesn't want to see it come back and the reasons why I believe people I know who also hunted wouldn't want to see it come back either. We might be selfish, but if I'm right, they'll never get hunting back again. More people go hunting now than they did when they did kill foxes. Most people don't want to see blood and drag hunting existed before the fox-hunting ban, so not everyone who hunts want to see a fox killed and I doubt there's enough support for it to come back.


So many things I disagree with in your post Elles, but I really don't want to spark off another fox hunting debate lol - so will just agree with you on the points we do agree about . I'm afraid I don't share optimism that they'll never bring it back though. A large section of the revolting Countryside Alliance are in government now. Nothing is safe - I predict buzzards, peregrine, sparrowhawk, red kite will be in the firing line soon & it will be total eradication of our few remaining Hen harriers. Watch this space.



Satori said:


> Understand your frustration but, really there is not one single Conservative Party policy you agree with?........
> 
> No none. Because even if I think I do, it'll be a blatant lie OR it sure as hell wont be what it seems. The tory party are nothing but a bunch of liars, thieves & crooks lol - So, anyway, I've gone through a few of their policies just to confirm what I already suspected..
> 
> Extension of the right-to-buy scheme to housing association tenants in England Solve the housing crisis by selling off what little social housing we have left. No thanks. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ight-to-buy-10175492.html?cmpid=facebook-post
> Plans to build 200,000 starter homes Which basically means the provision of providing affordable housing will fall still further -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683974
> Ensuring all people who work 30 hours per week on the minimum wage pay no income tax
> Doubling free childcare allowance for three and four-year-olds to 30 hours
> 
> Increasing the inheritance tax threshold on family homes to £1m by 2017  Taking care of the wealthy - as per.
> _The Tories suffered a blow on Sunday when the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that a pledge to raise the inheritance tax threshold on family homes to £1m would disproportionately benefit richer people._
> No above-inflation rises in rail fares until 2020 Well fares have already shot up by 25% under the tories.
> 
> An extra £8bn a year for the NHS by 2020  Duplicitous liars -
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-louise-irvine/nhs-funding_b_7104674.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
> Opening 500 more free schools 'Free'schools? Paid for at an extortionate rate by the tax payer.
> An EU referendum by 2017
> Running a surplus by 2018 so that the UK "starts to pay down its debts" LMFAO
> No rise in VAT, national insurance contributions or income tax How many times have they told the VAT porkie now? lol
> A crackdown on tax evasion and the "aggressive" avoidance of tax A token jesture at best. They wont want to upset their backers.
> Creating a "Northern Powerhouse" through investment I live in the 'desolate north', this is just another sly way of pi$$ing on us. Underfund us, then blame the council when things go **** up.
> Spending £100bn on infrastructure in the next Parliament Bye bye our green & pleasant land & all its precious treasures.
> Achieving full employment by helping businesses create two million extra jobs over the course of the next Parliament  The dishonest tories count people as employed even if they're not paid, if they work 1 hour a week, your job lasts a day!
> Creating 3 million new apprenticeships
> Cutting £10bn of red tape over the next Parliament Cutting even more red tape that has protected our environment for decades. Shameful http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/new...red-tape-reduction-drive-hit-green-businesses
> Giving businesses "the most competitive taxes of any major economy" Corporate America will be pleased
> Replacing Jobseeker's Allowance for 18-21 year-olds with a Youth Allowance time-limited to six months. After that, they will have to take an apprenticeship or traineeship or do community work to claim benefits
> Requiring 40% of those entitled to take part in strike ballots to vote for a strike before industrial action can be held Under this logic they wouldn't even be in power.
> Requiring companies with more than 250 employees to publish their gender pay gap - the difference between average pay for male and female employees
> Increasing the minimum wage to £6.70 by the autumn and to £8 by the end of the decade
> Investing £6.9bn in the UK's research infrastructure up to 2021 What does this mean? even more animals used in experimentation? (Another broken promise of theirs - they promised a reduction in the numbers used
> "Near universal superfast broadband" for rural areas
> Taking everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of income tax
> Passing a new law that would mean all those working 30 hours a week and earning the minimum wage will not pay income tax on earnings
> Raising the threshold for the 40p rate of tax so that nobody under £50,000 pays the rate .....
> A freeze on working age benefits for two years from April 2016 (exemptions for disability and pensioner benefits) More misery & suffering
> Lowering the benefit cap from £26,000 to £23,000 (with exemptions for those receiving Disability Living Allowance or the Personal Independence Payment) Awful, once again the greedy balancing the books on the shoulders of the needy . http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-cutting-benefits-cap-britain-work?CMP=twt_gu
> Giving working parents of three and four-year-olds 30 hours of free childcare a week
> Negotiating new EU rules so people will have to be earning in the UK for four years before they can claim tax credits and child benefits
> Introducing a four-year residency requirement for social housing for EU migrants
> Ending the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits
> Requiring EU jobseekers who have not found a job within six months to leave
> Insist new EU member states' citizens do not have free movement rights "until their economies have converged much more closely with existing member states"
> Cap the level of skilled migration from outside the EU at 20,700
> Extend the "deport first, appeal later" principle to cover all immigration appeals and judicial reviews, apart from asylum cases
> Investing £7bn over the course of the next Parliament to provide "good school places"
> Opening at least 500 new free schools and turning failing schools into academies They've already said.
> Protecting the schools budget; increasing the amount spent on schools as the number of pupils increases
> Scrapping the cap on higher education student numbers
> Providing same-day GP appointments for over 75s
> The right to a named GP
> Integration of health and social care systems
> Keep major museums and galleries free to enter
> Freeze the BBC licence fee
> Guarantee those who work for a big company and the public sector entitlement to Volunteering Leave for three days per year
> End taxpayer-funded six-figure pay-offs for the best-paid public sector workers
> Reduce number of MPs to 600 Hence ensuring the tories stay in power FOREVER.
> Introduce English votes for English laws No doubt this will benefit Conservative party in some way
> Give English MPs a veto over matters only affecting England Much easier to push through destructive right wing policies
> Implement the recommendations of the Smith Commission, set up to consider new powers for Scotland after the independence referendum
> Increase some powers for the Welsh Assembly
> Devolve corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly
> Toughen sentencing and reform the prison system When the tories say 'reform' they usually mean privatise.
> Create a Victims' Law that will enshrine key rights for victims, including the right to make a personal statement and have it read in court before sentencing and before parole hearings . . . http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/17/victims-of-crime-joshua-rozenberg?CMP=twt_gu
> Scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights Jeezus! This alone ought to be reason enough NOT to vote for them.
> Strengthen counter-terrorism powers Playing on people fears to crush all political dissent. That's us loony leftie, anti badger cull, anti fracking protestors criminilised
> Create new Extremism Disruption Orders, which the party says would help target those trying to radicalise young people on social media  Another nail in the coffin for democracy.
> Increasing the inheritance tax threshold for married couples and civil partners to £1m
> Continuing to increase the state pension through the triple lock system, meaning it rises by at least 2.5%
> Capping charges on residential care
> Introducing a single-tier pension
> Protecting pensioner benefits like free bus passes and the winter fuel payment
> Protect the UK economy from further integration with the eurozone while reclaiming other powers from Europe
> Uphold commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international development With Grant *Michael Green* *Sabastian Fox* Shapps at the helm. What could possibly go wrong :/
> Maintain the size of the regular armed services and not reduce the Army to below 82,000 See below VVV
> Expand armed forces reserves to 35,000 Because they're cheaper? lol They've slashed all the regular jobs .http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25854374
> Retain Trident and build a new a new fleet of nuclear submarines Its obscene to waste billions in taxes on an obsolete cold war relic.http://www.cnduk.org/cnd-media/item...e-defence-secretary-slams-trident-replacement Just look what all that money could fund - (you have to press the red button first though  ) http://www.cnduk.org/scraptrident/
> Giving Parliament a free vote on repeal of the Hunting Act Seriously?
> Ending any new public subsidy for onshore wind farms Cameron knows the dangers of not taking immediate action on climate change. What does this make him a sociopath? psychopath? Doesn't give a damn about all the innocent lives who will pay for his selfish greed.
> ...


You can't really see my response to their misleading extra £8bn for the NHS pledge And lets just remind ourselves Cameron refuses to exempt the NHS from TTIP.



And even a former Tory peer calls the tory manifesto 'The Mother of All Lies' http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...ls-conservative-5525765#ICID=sharebar_twitter

The liars even tried to erase their previous broken pledges from the internet. That's how untrustworthy they are!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/conservatives-delete-internet-promises-pledges-2788442

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-pre-election-pledges-from-their-website.html


----------



## Satori

^ but apart from that, they seem ok then.


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> ^ but apart from that, they seem ok then.


Hahahaa yeah, they're ace


----------



## noushka05

Hard to believe so many people feared the Nicola Sturgeon more than this Government - utterly terrifying.


----------



## Ang2

Noush, where exactly are you coming from with this? The new laws are to protect joe public from hate preachers, and radicalised jihadists that incite hatred, whilst remaining within the law. Those with an ideology agenda, who plot terrorist carnage, shouldn't be here! There is one new arrest every week, thwarting terrorist attacks. This isn't a small problem, and these people are trying to recruit on a massive scale. This problem isn't going to go away by itself.


----------



## cinnamontoast

And Russel Brand is an absolute knob. 

Also love how Gervais (rather jumped on the bandwagon of an emotive issue, way to guarantee followers!) has charming followers who have decided that they should go and kill the f-I got horses of hunters (under Gervais' comments on the HSA page) cos evidently horses aren't worthwhile as animals, clearly. Nice post some time back on the Guildford sabs' page about stringing piano wire across the paths to get the hunters. Lovely. People worth less than foxes. 

No need for anyone to reply, just stirring, but needed to vent and say that I don't think that some people in the public eye are all that sincere/truthful/have many brain cells.


----------



## noushka05

Ang2 said:


> Noush, where exactly are you coming from with this? The new laws are to protect joe public from hate preachers, and radicalised jihadists that incite hatred, whilst remaining within the law. Those with an ideology agenda, who plot terrorist carnage, shouldn't be here! There is one new arrest every week, thwarting terrorist attacks. This isn't a small problem, and these people are trying to recruit on a massive scale. This problem isn't going to go away by itself.


The government are playing on your fears to make it appear acceptable to erode all OUR rights Ang. Politics of fear is what the Conservatives (who conserve nothing!) are renowned for. The new laws will strip away our right to protest peacefully, our right to free speech - hell I could be arrested for the things I have said against the government on here!. What kind of a 'democracy' is that? Its no kind. This government are the greatest threat. If the media had done its job you would know TTIP is a far greater threat, you would know climate change is the greatest threat to all life on earth - The media are the governments mouthpiece & both are deflecting our attention elsewhere. And when the NHS is gone, how many lives will be lost because of that?

Please check this out - http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2015/may/12/beyond-politics-fear-0



cinnamontoast said:


> And Russel Brand is an absolute knob.
> 
> Also love how Gervais (rather jumped on the bandwagon of an emotive issue, way to guarantee followers!) has charming followers who have decided that they should go and kill the f-I got horses of hunters (under Gervais' comments on the HSA page) cos evidently horses aren't worthwhile as animals, clearly. Nice post some time back on the Guildford sabs' page about stringing piano wire across the paths to get the hunters. Lovely. People worth less than foxes.
> 
> No need for anyone to reply, just stirring, but needed to vent and say that I don't think that some people in the public eye are all that sincere/truthful/have many brain cells.


An 'absolute knob' who, unlike the corporate media, uses his videos to report the full facts & statistics.

I don't think its Ricky who is being insincere . Don't you keep saying you oppose foxhunting? lol Are you also angry at him for speaking out against all the other forms of animal cruelty he regularly raises awareness of ,eg: Yulin dogmeat festival, puppy farming, poaching, trophy hunting, bull fighting & so on? or it specifically foxhunting that makes you want to 'vent'? He also supports (& raises awareness of) fantastic causes such as Animals Asia & Anti poaching organisations. He hasnt jumped on any 'bandwagon' he has been a voice for the voiceless all along  . Ricky Gervais may well be a celebrity but he is also a human being with feelings, and I think you'll find all right thinking people are sickened & disgusted that fox hunting is back on the agenda. I would have thought someone like you who is so opposed to it would understand how he feels, no ?? Of course I cant read everything, but I have never seen any of his followers say anything about killing horses? Neither Ricky nor a single person who genuinely cared about animals would think killing horses anything but disgusting, as well you know . And personally, I enjoy watching Ricky showing the disgusting bloodjunkies up for what they are - they never get the better of him, that's for sure .

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · 7h7 hours ago
I hope we go extinct soon.

1,016 retweets1,678 favorites

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 18
It takes a special kind of bravery to take on a fox, with nothing but 25 of your mates on horseback and 35 dogs.

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 16
"Fox hunting is humane." - Ah, that must be why vets use "ripped apart by hounds" as their chosen method of euthanising sick pet cats.

2,198 retweets 3,384 favorites

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 16
The only way Fox Hunting would count as vermin control is if the posh twats fell off their horses and broke their necks. #*KeepTheBan*

4,666 retweets 6,380 favorites

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · 8h8 hours ago
The Dirty Scum That Bashes Piñatas Full of Live Animals http://www.vice.com/read/yucatan-animal-sacrifice-tradition-876… via @*vice*

View summary
244 retweets271 favorites

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 18
I'd love to shame trophy hunters and make them look like stupid grinning psychopaths, but they always seem to beat me to it.

1,034 retweets2,824 favorites

*Ricky GervaisVerified account*‏@*rickygervais*
How was it ever in question that animals feel pain? All countries should ban cosmetic testing. Cruel & frivolous.

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 15
Today is #*EndangeredSpeciesDay*- Don't give up the fight for wildlife

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 17
I hope you never try to torture an animal. But if you do I hope it kills you.

3,198 retweets 5,502 favorites

@*mmms*12h12 hours ago

@*rickygervais* -humans are an animal species too, you realise?

0 retweets0 favorites
*Ricky GervaisVerified account*‏@*rickygervais*

@m*mms* yes. My statement still applies if the animal is human 


*Ricky GervaisVerified account*‏@*rickygervais*
I hope you appreciate the fact that I only bother conversing with these braindead mentalists for your amusement. You're welcome 



*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 15
Thanks for all your lovely comments about #*derek* on @*netflix* & thanks even more for supporting all the animal welfare stuff. I loves you


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Sorry Noush, I'm totally against bloodsports but I find his comments offensive and counter productive and as I keep asking whether in relation to politics or animals or whatever, who gives a monkeys what he/they think? Why does anyone care what a block who thinks he is funny and isn't thinks about anything? As for Mr Brand I won't even say what I think of him because it ain't ladylike.


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry Noush, I'm totally against bloodsports but I find his comments offensive and counter productive and as I keep asking whether in relation to politics or animals or whatever, who gives a monkeys what he/they think? Why does anyone care what a block who thinks he is funny and isn't thinks about anything? As for Mr Brand I won't even say what I think of him because it ain't ladylike.


He does a great job using his celebrity status to raise awareness of animal welfare issues. That makes him a good person in my book. And I know the welfare organisations are grateful to him for doing so because they thank him constantly. So I can only assume people more people are supporting them. Brand might not be your cup of tea, but he is only relaying what the experts tell him because the mainstream/corporate media are presenting a distorted view of issues & barely reporting the most important issues facing us at all. You only need to look at how many people are climate change sceptics (even CC deniers!) there are, to know that the media is failing us all badly. The window of opportunity to avert catastrophic runaway climate change is a few short years away. The media are a disgrace.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

But Noush with celebrity status comes responsibility and how is it responsible to make statements like

*Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 16
The only way Fox Hunting would count as vermin control is if the posh twats fell off their horses and broke their necks. #*KeepTheBan*

and

*cky GervaisVerified account*‏@*rickygervais*
I hope you appreciate the fact that I only bother conversing with these braindead mentalists for your amusement. You're welcome

As for CC sceptics again you are assuming that people who don't believe the same as you are doing so from a point of ignorance or brainwashing by the media. There are plenty of people who don't share your view and actually I would say the media and TV in particular are very in the CC camp rather than the sceptics camp. Its actually quite rare to see any discussions about the subject on TV where the alternative view is given.


----------



## DoodlesRule

noushka05 said:


> He does a great job using his celebrity status to raise awareness of animal welfare issues. That makes him a good person in my book.


Noushka you come across as a very genuine kind person with strong beliefs but I just do not get your admiration for Russell Brand - for years he treated a string of women as meat to use and toss aside. But the women who chose to associate with the creep had a choice - how can you think him a good person after the way he treated Andrew Sach?

I am sure you don't think someone is a good person if their views on animal welfare are good but they abuse and humiliate the elderly, as he did, so I just don't understand your approval of the infantile low life


----------



## silvi

The debate has taken a whole new turn and is getting interesting again 

Sabs stringing piano wire across the path of a fox hunt are unthinking idiots who deserve the punishment they (hopefully) get. But I also hope that most sabs do not take these extreme measures as that would make them as bad as those who hunt foxes.

Russell Brand makes good points and lets us know about information that the mainstream media ignores, but he also annoys an awful lot of people...... not for what he says, but because of who he is....

Ricky Gervais is passionate about animal welfare and, I agree with Noush, his campaigns are supported by some animal welfare charities. But he has to remember that just one throw away remark on Twitter can bring down his whole campaign. It would be a shame if he was brought down by the very media he is using to promote the cause.

In the 21st Century, whether we like it or not, celebrities do have an influence on what people think and do. We will all say "not us", but there are plenty out there who do listen to Brand and Gervais and some of those will take notice. That is why any celeb who stands up to be counted faces a media storm...especially if what they say opposes the accepted viewpoint.

But I do agree with @rottiepointerhouse that the mainstream media does seem very much onboard with the CC debate. It is the skeptics who are ridiculed. But that in itself makes people wonder whether they are being given all the facts....


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But Noush with celebrity status comes responsibility and how is it responsible to make statements like
> 
> *Ricky Gervais*@rickygervais · May 16
> The only way Fox Hunting would count as vermin control is if the posh twats fell off their horses and broke their necks. #*KeepTheBan*
> 
> and
> 
> *cky GervaisVerified account*‏@*rickygervais*
> I hope you appreciate the fact that I only bother conversing with these braindead mentalists for your amusement. You're welcome
> 
> As for CC sceptics again you are assuming that people who don't believe the same as you are doing so from a point of ignorance or brainwashing by the media. There are plenty of people who don't share your view and actually I would say the media and TV in particular are very in the CC camp rather than the sceptics camp. Its actually quite rare to see any discussions about the subject on TV where the alternative view is given.


Well the fact that so many believe there IS an alternate view proves how badly the media are letting us down. The scientific consensus on man made climate change is as strong as the consensus on the link between HIV and aids. They shouldn't be giving any platform to alternative views - views are not facts. The facts on climate change should be being shouted from the rooftops. Yet, studies prove quite the opposite.. Climate change should be THE big issue yet its barely on most peoples radar 










_David Cameron's decision to champion the __Green Party's inclusion in the general election debates__ has, regardless of his motives, considerably raised the stakes. It has also opened up broader questions about the attention we give to environmental issues.

UKIP has undoubtedly gained momentum from the high volume of coverage of immigration in recent years - to such an extent that many voters in areas of low immigration regard it as their biggest political concern.

To what extent has the Green agenda similarly been foregrounded by coverage of climate change and other environmental issues?_

*Tipping point*
_First, a reality check. By most measures the environmental problems we face now are as critical as they have ever been. The World Bank estimates that the cost of disposing growing quantities of waste is __becoming an increasing burden on the public purse__. But the most urgent problem - what the __Stern Review__ called: "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen" - is climate change.

The __Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)__ first signaled a scientific consensus on the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its __1990 report__. Since then, global production of greenhouse gases has increased by 40%.

According to climate scientists, after decades of dithering we are now __beginning to run out of time__. In a report in November 2011, the International Energy Agency calculated that - without significant political action - we will __pass the point of no return in 2016__. After that date, the volume of greenhouse gases already lingering in the atmosphere may be too high to prevent climate change reaching catastrophic levels._

_Despite this urgency, we appear to have become more relaxed about the issue. Various studies have suggested that media coverage of climate change - and environmental issues more generally - has declined precipitously since 2009/10. __Boykoff and Mansfield__ suggest that this is a global trend. Recent research in my own school (not yet online) suggests that this decline is particularly notable in UK media coverage.

Vicky Dando has compared the British press reporting of two risks - climate change and terrorism. She found that coverage of terrorism has remained fairly high since 2001, while attention given to climate change has declined markedly since the relative high point between 2007 and 2009. This decline has been a steady and consistent, with more than a five-fold decrease between 2007 and 2012_.


Time to hear from Natalie Bennett. Nick Ansell/PA Wire
Click to enlarge

_She also found that while the seriousness of the terrorism threat was unquestioned, there was notably less certainty and urgency in the press coverage of climate change.

In soon to be published research, Richard Thomas has recently compared two full years of broadcast news (the 10pm weekday flagship bulletins on ITV and BBC) in 2007 and 2014. He tracked the coverage of more than 30 topics and issues and found that while the attention given to the economy has increased significantly, environmental issues have almost disappeared. In 2007, the percentage of news time devoted to environmental issues was 2.5% on ITV and 1.6% on the BBC. By 2014, this had dropped to just 0.3% on the BBC and 0.2% on ITV._

*News values*
_In this grand narrative, environmental issues are put on hold while we focus on restoring economic growth. As __Tim Jackson has shown__, this postponement masks a troubling truth. In a fossil fuel-based economy, the more economic growth we have, the more we increase greenhouse gas missions - pushing the goal of reducing them to sustainable levels even further beyond our reach. Recent __stories about the fall in oil prices__ illustrate this myopia well. This is, for climate change, very bad news, pushing our fossil fuel emissions even higher, but it has been reported almost exclusively in terms of its impact on the economy.

In 2007 the Madeleine McCann story, on its own, commanded as much attention as the total number of environmental stories broadcast that year. Even at the time, this might have been questionable. Yet, remarkably, seven years on - well after the Madeleine McCann story has faded from the news agenda - this comparison_ _holds up. By 2014 there were still as many broadcast news stories about Madeleine McCann as there were on the range of environmental issues.

Coverage of immigration, by contrast, appears to have retained its news value. In 2007, the BBC devoted only slightly more time to immigration than the environment, but by 2014 immigration received six times as much coverage. On ITV the shift is even more dramatic, with immigration receiving ten times as much coverage in 2014._

_The two issues are, of course, related - climate change will unleash significant pressures on immigration as people are displaced by extreme weather and drought - a point rarely made when either issue is aired_.

*Rising complacency levels*
_This is, from the journalist's point of view, understandable. Interest in environmental problems like climate change can be difficult to sustain. News organisations feel they have already covered the story and, without a regular supply of climate change "events" to stimulate coverage, find it difficult to keep reporting the threats posed without appearing repetitive.

But in terms of public policy, it is hard to justify. Indeed this lack of scrutiny has let politicians off the hook, allowing them to continue to postpone serious attempts to tackle the issue.

It may also be one of the reasons why environmental issues remain so low on the public's list of concerns. Decades of agenda-setting research show that public priorities are often more responsive to prominence in media coverage than they are to "real-world" trends. So, for example, it would not be unreasonable for people to assume that the lack of coverage of climate change reflects a diminution of the threat. We have thereby drifted into a cycle of silence, where lack of media coverage creates a sense of complacency in both public opinion and political debate_

.

Even Cameron accepts climate change is happening & keeps spouting we have to address it. He knows the dangers we face if we do nothing, but he implements destructive policies that will exacerbate it - what kind of person does this make him? Evil.



DoodlesRule said:


> Noushka you come across as a very genuine kind person with strong beliefs but I just do not get your admiration for Russell Brand - for years he treated a string of women as meat to use and toss aside. But the women who chose to associate with the creep had a choice - how can you think him a good person after the way he treated Andrew Sach?
> 
> I am sure you don't think someone is a good person if their views on animal welfare are good but they abuse and humiliate the elderly, as he did, so I just don't understand your approval of the infantile low life


Thank you DR!, yes, I am all those things

Like him or loathe him, I think its important to just take a minute to listen to what hes saying. Many of the issues he talks about are things that will have a huge negative impact on all our lives. Such as TTIP. I think this is a pretty good article saying what I mean.

_I am saying you should be focusing not on the man, but on what the man is saying - what he's actually saying, not what the media is telling you he's saying - as should surely always be the case. part Hundreds of thousands already use Brand's __The Trews__ (816k subscribers and counting) as an alternative source of news, and hardly because it's a platform for Brand's particular type of comedy. The Trews offers hard-hitting, largely non-trivial information that directly impacts you and the society you're inescapably part of, discussed in an honest, open way (and not just by Brand, either - guests have so far included former government spin doctor Alistair Campbell, RT's financial expert Max Keiser and Guardian columnist and political activist George Monbiot).

For instance, arguably no one else with a similar level of exposure is talking about __TTIP__. The mainstream media certainly isn't doing much to warn you about a __prospective trans-Atlantic trade act__ that's being put forward in secret, is permanent once in place and which will essentially leave EU nations including the UK enslaved by transnational corporations (as much as I wish it was, that's barely an exaggeration)._
https://medium.com/dark-mountain/your-hatred-for-russell-brand-is-irrelevant-abc00259f00f



silvi said:


> The debate has taken a whole new turn and is getting interesting again
> 
> Sabs stringing piano wire across the path of a fox hunt are unthinking idiots who deserve the punishment they (hopefully) get. But I also hope that most sabs do not take these extreme measures as that would make them as bad as those who hunt foxes.
> 
> Russell Brand makes good points and lets us know about information that the mainstream media ignores, but he also annoys an awful lot of people...... not for what he says, but because of who he is....
> 
> Ricky Gervais is passionate about animal welfare and, I agree with Noush, his campaigns are supported by some animal welfare charities. But he has to remember that just one throw away remark on Twitter can bring down his whole campaign. It would be a shame if he was brought down by the very media he is using to promote the cause.
> 
> In the 21st Century, whether we like it or not, celebrities do have an influence on what people think and do. We will all say "not us", but there are plenty out there who do listen to Brand and Gervais and some of those will take notice. That is why any celeb who stands up to be counted faces a media storm...especially if what they say opposes the accepted viewpoint.
> 
> But I do agree with @rottiepointerhouse that the mainstream media does seem very much onboard with the CC debate. It is the skeptics who are ridiculed. But that in itself makes people wonder whether they are being given all the facts....


It could be just hyperbole Silvi - borne out of seeing the gut wrenching suffering the blood sports enthusiasts inflict on defenceless animals. Though in all honesty, I dont value the life of an animal abuser above the animals they abuse - if that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have never heard of an incidence where piano wire has been used by sabs. I suspect a lot it just pro hunt propaganda to smear the sabs name. They did the same thing in the badger cull, its a cheap trick the scum always use to try to curry favour with the public.

Skeptics are ridiculed because they seem to believe they know better than the worlds most eminent climate scientists, its just not believing in science :/


----------



## MoggyBaby

Blimey!!! 2 Weeks on and this thread is still alive and kicking!!! Who'd have thought it.


----------



## silvi

noushka05 said:


> It could be just hyperbole Silvi - borne out of seeing the gut wrenching suffering the blood sports enthusiasts inflict on defenceless animals. Though in all honesty, I dont value the life of an animal abuser above the animals they abuse - if that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have never heard of an incidence where piano wire has been used by sabs. I suspect a lot it just pro hunt propaganda to smear the sabs name. They did the same thing in the badger cull, its a cheap trick the scum always use to try to curry favour with the public.
> 
> Skeptics are ridiculed because they seem to believe they know better than the worlds most eminent climate scientists, its just not believing in science :/


Sorry, I didn't make my remarks on the sab stringing piano wire across a pathway clear - Cinnamontoast was talking about the danger to horses, rather than the riders of those horses. And if that is the case, I have to say that I could never condone any sab activity that doesn't consider the danger to the horses. Of course it could well be hyperbole, and something to trick our consciences.... I agree with that too .

You see, although I do follow the CC argument, I come from a family who do not believe it - or at least all of it. And they can provide scientific arguments that show that there is more to climate change than environmentalists would have us believe (they can but I can't, which is why I am not linking to anything here).
So I'm loathe to dismiss their arguments or ridicule them, until I've seen the whole picture.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Silvi my OH is the same, he has read many books on the subject which I haven't but I will ask him when he gets home .

I find this quite a shocking statement Noush

Well the fact that so many believe there IS an alternate view proves how badly the media are letting us down. The scientific consensus on man made climate change is as strong as the consensus on the link between HIV and aids.* They shouldn't be giving any platform to alternative views - views are not facts*. The facts on climate change should be being shouted from the rooftops. Yet, studies prove quite the opposite.. Climate change should be THE big issue yet its barely on most peoples radar 

I thought you believed in freedom not censorship. Many scientists said it was FACT that a diet containing saturated fat caused heart disease and that fat in the diet was the cause of obesity. Now many are saying that is not true and saturated fats such as butter,cheese and cream are OK and do not contribute to heart disease or obesity with sugar being the major culprit which has gone under the scientists radar for many years. IMO the alternative view should always be given a platform. Again you are saying the media are to blame for so many people believing there is an alternative view but many people have reached their own opinions on the subject without the help of the media. Why does there seem to be this attitude these days that any opinions we hold were put there by the media?


----------



## Colliebarmy

cinnamontoast said:


> And Russel Brand is an absolute knob.


it was only 3 weeks ago he was the new Messiah!

and where is he now?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lling-sell-trinkets-masses.html#ixzz3ZidnZJhd


----------



## silvi

Colliebarmy said:


> it was only 3 weeks ago he was the new Messiah!
> 
> and where is he now?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lling-sell-trinkets-masses.html#ixzz3ZidnZJhd


Here he is:
Russell Brand's Latest Trews Video Shows Him Taking Responsibility For 'F***ing Up' The General Election For Labour

I'm sure you can think of something to say about that statement.....


----------



## Ang2

noushka05 said:


> The government are playing on your fears to make it appear acceptable to erode all OUR rights Ang. Politics of fear is what the Conservatives (who conserve nothing!) are renowned for. The new laws will strip away our right to protest peacefully, our right to free speech - hell I could be arrested for the things I have said against the government on here!. What kind of a 'democracy' is that? Its no kind. This government are the greatest threat. If the media had done its job you would know TTIP is a far greater threat, you would know climate change is the greatest threat to all life on earth - The media are the governments mouthpiece & both are deflecting our attention elsewhere. And when the NHS is gone, how many lives will be lost because of that?
> 
> Please check this out - http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2015/may/12/beyond-politics-fear-0


I have been working all day, so haven't had chance to read all the posts yet. But I just wanted to say this. Im with you on animal cruelty, fox hunting, saving the planet and human rights!

As far as I am aware, the human rights bill is being scrapped solely because of terrorism, and because its being exploited by extremists and criminals (not born in this Country) who came here for a better life, but are actually vile individuals who risk the safety of the general public, and national security. Why not give the government the benefit of doubt? Lets wait and see if, as they say, the general public will not be affected. We are living in the UK. Not some third World cess pit! Every government that has been in power, has had a proven track record of human rights. That's why the whole World and his dog, wants to come and live here!

As for saving the plantet - isn't the UK only responsible for 1% of the World's pollution? China and India being one of the biggest offenders? What difference can the UK make right now?

As for the Green Party and their open border policies - to the whole World...... How many more millions do you think we can fit in this country?


----------



## cinnamontoast

I am specifically against the comments Gervais has made about people breaking their necks in his anti hunting comments. I'm also against his delightful anti-semitic jokes, but that's another thread. I cannot understand how he can defend various animals yet hope that people will be harmed. And again, it was some idiot under Gervais' comment on the HSA page that said kill the hunters' horses. 

Whilst I'm against fox hunting, I think I'm even more against the idiot sabs who frequently appear as violent rentamob types. As someone in the public eye, Gervais and co really need to tone down the whole violent image they are currently portraying. They're no better than the people they revile. Do they really believe that a hunter should be harmed or die because they hunt? I couldn't go that far, it's an extremist and unbalanced view. Unfortunately, popular, well known people influence those who are open to it and they have a responsibility to be careful of what they say and how they say it.


----------



## noushka05

silvi said:


> Sorry, I didn't make my remarks on the sab stringing piano wire across a pathway clear - Cinnamontoast was talking about the danger to horses, rather than the riders of those horses. And if that is the case, I have to say that I could never condone any sab activity that doesn't consider the danger to the horses. Of course it could well be hyperbole, and something to trick our consciences.... I agree with that too .
> 
> No, I could never condone it either Silvi & I've still never heard of a single case of it happening.
> 
> You see, although I do follow the CC argument, I come from a family who do not believe it - or at least all of it. And they can provide scientific arguments that show that there is more to climate change than environmentalists would have us believe (they can but I can't, which is why I am not linking to anything here).
> So I'm loathe to dismiss their arguments or ridicule them, until I've seen the whole picture.


But its not what 'environmentalists' would have us believe, this is the position of the overwhelming scientific consensus - which is 97% of climate experts and peer-reviewed climate science studies. As environmentalists tend to believe in science they are absolutely going to accept anthropogenic climate change is a real & present danger & they are going to ridicule deniers/skeptics.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Silvi my OH is the same, he has read many books on the subject which I haven't but I will ask him when he gets home .
> 
> I find this quite a shocking statement Noush
> 
> Well the fact that so many believe there IS an alternate view proves how badly the media are letting us down. The scientific consensus on man made climate change is as strong as the consensus on the link between HIV and aids.* They shouldn't be giving any platform to alternative views - views are not facts*. The facts on climate change should be being shouted from the rooftops. Yet, studies prove quite the opposite.. Climate change should be THE big issue yet its barely on most peoples radar
> 
> I thought you believed in freedom not censorship. Many scientists said it was FACT that a diet containing saturated fat caused heart disease and that fat in the diet was the cause of obesity. Now many are saying that is not true and saturated fats such as butter,cheese and cream are OK and do not contribute to heart disease or obesity with sugar being the major culprit which has gone under the scientists radar for many years. IMO the alternative view should always be given a platform. Again you are saying the media are to blame for so many people believing there is an alternative view but many people have reached their own opinions on the subject without the help of the media. Why does there seem to be this attitude these days that any opinions we hold were put there by the media?


I'm really interested to know which books you OH has read RPH. Of course people get their info from other sources other than the media, you may have formed your opinion from books, but I assume most people its from media. There are loads of books denying climate change, that idiot Plimer has a best seller I believe , there are astroturfers all over the internet denying climate change - many of them are corporate flunkies. So you have to always ask yourself who are they? & what are their credentials?.

Yes, I STRONGLY believe in freedom of speech & not censorship. But the BBC for example are 'suppose' to report accurate information, they are suppose to present scientific fact not give the same platform to pseudo science or present opinion as fact. Its like saying presenting rhino horn as an alternative cure for impotency is acceptable, science has proved it is nonsense, but we should present it as an alternative because some 'dr's' 'believe' it works . Its ridiculous. We are talking about the destruction of our life support system here. The science to support climate change is overwhelming, we simply don't have time to waste with deniers, too much is at stake & time has almost run out. Global temperatures have hit a record high http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-the-projected-effect-on-humans-10263662.html, the ice caps are melting, the seas are rising, the oceans acidifying, the list goes on & on. We are sitting back while they destroy our precious planet for greed 

Because there is so much fogging of the issue by deniers, people aren't taking it seriously. Its time to be clear on climate change or its going to be too late .

This is a great article on the subject.http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../27/bbc-false-balance-fox-news-global-warming

*Is the BBC becoming the UK version of Fox News on global warming? *
The BBC has decided to follow the Fox News model of "fair and balanced" reporting on global warming and climate change









The BBC shields its audience from the harsh reality of climate change. Photograph: Toby Melville/REUTERS

False balance in media reporting on climate change is a big problem for one overarching reason: there is a huge gap between the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and the public perception that scientists are evenly divided on the subject.









SkepticalScience.com
This can undoubtedly be traced in large part to the media giving disproportionate coverage to the opposing fringe climate contrarian views. Research has shown that people who are unaware of the expert consensus are less likely to accept the science and less likely to support taking action to address the problem, so media false balance can be linked directly to our inability to solve the climate problem.

The BBC isn't the only purportedly unbiased media outlet to fall victim to false balance in its climate reporting. CNN has a tendency to use this same type of debate format when covering climate change. For example, CNN _Crossfire_ recently invited David Kreutzer, an economist at the right-wing political think tank Heritage Institute, and League of Conservation Voters senior vice president Navin Nayak, who has a background in biology and environmental studies. Neither is a climate scientist, but most of the show was spent debating climate science (and debating it inaccurately).

As another example, after the USA Today editorial team wrote a straightforward editorial simply pointing out that cold winter weather in some areas doesn't disprove global warming, they then felt the need to solicit an "opposing view." They had to settle for a non-scientist from the right-wing think tank Heartland Institute, probably because they couldn't find a scientist anywhere who would take the absurd opposing view.

The Washington Post also just published a Charles Krauthammer opinion piece (another non-scientist) leading off by saying "I'm not a global warming denier," followed by denying so many basic climate science facts, climate scientist Michael Mann made a drinking game out of it, and one of the paper's own editorial writers was forced to debunk it. The Sunday news shows haven't been any better, likewise treating climate science in the same manner as they would a political debate.

Recently, Juan Cole published a nice piece of satire entitled "_Bill Nye Science Guy to Debate GOP Rep Gohmert on Gravity_." I had to click the link to verify that it was a satirical story; with all of these media outlets inviting contrarian non-scientist opinions climate science, one can only wonder if evolution and gravity will be the next topics of these "debates."

Unfortunately, the BBC has habitually undervalued expert input from scientists and academics. In an essay to be published next month, Professor Lewis of Cardiff University notes that the BBC relies heavily on sources from politics and business like Nigel Lawson, and relatively infrequently on academics and scientists.

"A 2007 study, for example, found that around half of those sources used on BBC news were from just four professions: the worlds of politics, business, law and order and the news media. By contrast, the main knowledge-based professions and civic voices (from the academy, medicine, science and technology, thinks tanks, government/public agencies and NGOs) made up, between them, only 10 per cent of all sources.

This concentration was confirmed by the recent BBC Trust review of television news, which suggested that the dominance of these four groups as news sources has increased over the last five years"

Likewise the independent Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science written by Professor Steve Jones in 2011 concluded,

"For at least three years, the climate change deniers have been marginal to the scientific debate but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves. Their ability so to do suggests that an over‐diligent search for due impartiality - or for a controversy - continue to hinder the objective reporting of a scientific story ... There is a contrast between the clear demands for due impartiality in the BBC's written guidelines and what sometimes emerges on air."

However, David Jordan, head of BBC editorial standards, told Members of Parliament that the network rejected Jones' recommendation that they avoid false balance in their climate reporting.

The problem is that science isn't a matter of opinion. It's not like politics, where any topic of discussion can be debated by anybody with contrary views. Airing fictions to offset facts is not impartial, fair, or balanced. Nor is interviewing non-experts just because they hold contrary views that deny scientific realities.

There's a big difference between actual balance and false balance. Discussing climate policy is another matter, where all opinions should be welcome. But creating a faux scientific debate misinforms listeners and does them a disservice.

We're in the midst of an epidemic of false balance on climate change in the mainstream media, with the BBC as one of its main victims. The question before us now is whether the BBC and these other media outlets will remain "satisfied" treating climate science like politics, where all opinions are given equal weight regardless of their factual accuracy. Or perhaps viewers will be dissatisfied that the BBC is employing the same science reporting strategies as Fox News, and turn elsewhere to find genuinely balanced reporting.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Just to clarify Noush my OH has read the books, I haven't so I'm not that up on all the arguments.

Yes he has read Professor Ian Plimer's best selling "Heaven and Earth" - he is a professor of geology in case anyone hasn't heard of him.

This is quite an old interview but does explain some of his viewpoints - I particularly like the last paragraph about stomach ulcers

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...s-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick/

and various others including The Hockey Stick Illusion by AW Montford

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion

and Global Warming and other Bollocks by Stanley Feldman (professor of anaesthetics) and Vincent Marks (former professor of clinical biochemistry and dean of medicine at the University of Surrey).

Again I don't think you can call these people idiots just because they don't share the same view as you - I'd be interested to know if you have read Professor Plimer's book and if so whether you can go through and explain why you think each of his opinions is wrong.

Seriously Noush how do you keep cheerful in life when you believe there is so much doom and gloom coming our way? Life changes, it evolves, nothing stays the same, we all have to learn to adapt.


----------



## silvi

@noushka05:
I'm just off to work, so can't answer this in full yet, and have only skim read, but a couple of points:
You quote:


> Research has shown that people who are unaware of the expert consensus are less likely to accept the science and less likely to support taking action to address the problem, so media false balance can be linked directly to our inability to solve the climate problem.


I'm sorry, but I find this patronising and quite dismissive of anyone who disagrees with the consensus.
Just because someone does not accept the science under discussion, does not mean that they haven't done their research.
(But more on that later)



> The problem is that science isn't a matter of opinion. It's not like politics, where any topic of discussion can be debated by anybody with contrary views. Airing fictions to offset facts is not impartial, fair, or balanced. Nor is interviewing non-experts just because they hold contrary views that deny scientific realities.


I agree that science is based upon factual evidence, rather than opinions.
But I'm sorry, scientists must not take the view that the facts they produce cannot be questioned.
Even the collection of scientific data can be selective in what case is studied, what data is collected, and in how the results are estimated in relation to other factors.

I meet with academics most days of the week, including scientists. And even the scientists agree that data can be deliberately skewed.

Having said that, this applies just as much to the scientists who are CC skeptics as it does to the 97% of scientists who acknowledge the vital importance of climate change.

But before I leave it for now, one more thing.....

No one I know is saying that we are not in danger from Climate Change, and no one is saying that businesses and manufacturers have to do much more to help slow things down.
But what some of them are saying is that there are other factors involved as well - factors so far beyond our control.
And it is in the balancing of these factors and how we try to find a way to tackle them, along with the 97% of CC evidence, that most are going to disagree.


----------



## Colliebarmy

silvi said:


> Here he is:
> Russell Brand's Latest Trews Video Shows Him Taking Responsibility For 'F***ing Up' The General Election For Labour
> 
> I'm sure you can think of something to say about that statement.....


No need for me to comment on it really is there

Talk about an inflated ego though, as if anyone listened to HIM....PMSL


----------



## Colliebarmy

"No one I know is saying that we are not in danger from Climate Change"

I am


----------



## cinnamontoast

Colliebarmy said:


> "No one I know is saying that we are not in danger from Climate Change"
> 
> I am


Then I think you should watch the documentary where this glacier calves a chunk the size of Manhattan and afterwards, Google a pic of the ice coverage in Antarctica 40 years ago compared to now.






Edit: happy that YouTube videos now self-embed!


----------



## noushka05

Ang2 said:


> I have been working all day, so haven't had chance to read all the posts yet. But I just wanted to say this. Im with you on animal cruelty, fox hunting, saving the planet and human rights!
> 
> As far as I am aware, the human rights bill is being scrapped solely because of terrorism, and because its being exploited by extremists and criminals (not born in this Country) who came here for a better life, but are actually vile individuals who risk the safety of the general public, and national security. Why not give the government the benefit of doubt? Lets wait and see if, as they say, the general public will not be affected. We are living in the UK. Not some third World cess pit! Every government that has been in power, has had a proven track record of human rights. That's why the whole World and his dog, wants to come and live here!
> 
> As for saving the planet - isn't the UK only responsible for 1% of the World's pollution? China and India being one of the biggest offenders? What difference can the UK make right now?
> 
> As for the Green Party and their open border policies - to the whole World...... How many more millions do you think we can fit in this country?


That's what the government want you to think. Politics of fear - its how governments divide & conquer & how they strip away our democratic rights - its the oldest trick in the book. Its the faceless corporations we all should be worrying about. Please find out about TTIP, this poses far more of a threat to us than migrants - or even extremists Ang.

Our historical emissions alone make it our moral duty to lead the way in combatting climate change. And as most of our manufacturing is now done in China & India so a large proportion of their emissions are actually OUR emissions. Passing the buck is very convenient but its immoral.

And China is infact doing an incredible job reducing their emissions http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/14/china-coal-consumption-drops-further-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-by-equivalent-of-uk-total-in-one-year/, they put the UK & the US to shame - we should be redoubling our efforts to curb emissions - but we wont - our bent government has just been caught out BIG TIME - http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-ties-with-the-uk-government?CMP=share_btn_tw

*Revealed: BP's close ties with the UK government
Documents show the extent of BP's influence on government policy and how their intimate relationship is at odds with UK commitments to reduce carbon emissions
*
Both China & India are pleading with rich countries to reduce their emissions - http://www.theguardian.com/environm...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer



cinnamontoast said:


> I am specifically against the comments Gervais has made about people breaking their necks in his anti hunting comments. I'm also against his delightful anti-semitic jokes, but that's another thread. I cannot understand how he can defend various animals yet hope that people will be harmed. And again, it was some idiot under Gervais' comment on the HSA page that said kill the hunters' horses.
> 
> Whilst I'm against fox hunting, I think I'm even more against the idiot sabs who frequently appear as violent rentamob types. As someone in the public eye, Gervais and co really need to tone down the whole violent image they are currently portraying. They're no better than the people they revile. Do they really believe that a hunter should be harmed or die because they hunt? I couldn't go that far, it's an extremist and unbalanced view. Unfortunately, popular, well known people influence those who are open to it and they have a responsibility to be careful of what they say and how they say it.


Are you as angry at Charlie Hebdo's for their anti-Semitic cartoons?

People who abuse defenceless animals make me more angry than offensive jokes or cartoons - but that's just me.

(Don't forget its the pro hunters that have the vast majority of arrests for violence not the sabs, but I know people hunting foxes isn't exactly your top priority  )



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just to clarify Noush my OH has read the books, I haven't so I'm not that up on all the arguments.
> 
> Yes he has read Professor Ian Plimer's best selling "Heaven and Earth" - he is a professor of geology in case anyone hasn't heard of him.
> 
> This is quite an old interview but does explain some of his viewpoints - I particularly like the last paragraph about stomach ulcers
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...s-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and various others including The Hockey Stick Illusion by AW Montford
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion
> 
> and Global Warming and other Bollocks by Stanley Feldman (professor of anaesthetics) and Vincent Marks (former professor of clinical biochemistry and dean of medicine at the University of Surrey).
> 
> Again I don't think you can call these people idiots just because they don't share the same view as you - I'd be interested to know if you have read Professor Plimer's book and if so whether you can go through and explain why you think each of his opinions is wrong.
> 
> _
> _
> 
> Seriously Noush how do you keep cheerful in life when you believe there is so much doom and gloom coming our way? Life changes, it evolves, nothing stays the same, we all have to learn to adapt.


Oh eck James Delingpole :/ - .






I know Plimer is a Professor, but he has no integrity, a proven charlatan - in bed with mining industries. Hes not only a climate change denier but an asbestos denier as well This Professor of geology claims chrysotile isn't white asbestos & it isn't a carcinogen. My OH's Uncle was a plasterer, he died a few years ago from mesothelioma caused by asbestos dust. He suffered horribly.

Here is a transcript of the conversation http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3390224.htm

The last question put to Plimer " MATT PEACOCK: _"A final question, with respect Professor, have you ever taken any money from the coal industry or the asbestos industry or their l_obbyists?"

Watch George Monbiot destroy Plimer over his lies in Heaven & Earth






I'm good at hiding my worries I guess lol But i mostly do feel sick inside. I worry about the wildlife & the natural world & my lovely children. If world leaders heed the advice of the experts we have a chance to avert the worst affects of climate change, it doesn't have to change so catastrophically. If we do nothing & carry on regardless we will trigger off an unstoppable chain reaction. One in 6 species wont be able to adapt, neither will millions of people. I don't want to live on a planet that we have destroyed for greedy selfish reasons - a planet that we could have saved if we had only listened to the 97%.



silvi said:


> @noushka05:
> I'm just off to work, so can't answer this in full yet, and have only skim read, but a couple of points:
> You quote:
> 
> I'm sorry, but I find this patronising and quite dismissive of anyone who disagrees with the consensus.
> Just because someone does not accept the science under discussion, does not mean that they haven't done their research.
> (But more on that later)
> 
> I agree that science is based upon factual evidence, rather than opinions.
> But I'm sorry, scientists must not take the view that the facts they produce cannot be questioned.
> Even the collection of scientific data can be selective in what case is studied, what data is collected, and in how the results are estimated in relation to other factors.
> 
> Don't you think opposing views ought to be backed up by peer reviewed evidence ?
> 
> I meet with academics most days of the week, including scientists. And even the scientists agree that data can be deliberately skewed.
> 
> Having said that, this applies just as much to the scientists who are CC skeptics as it does to the 97% of scientists who acknowledge the vital importance of climate change.
> 
> The evidence is now so overwhelming, we know beyond a shadow of doubt that human activity is dangerously accelerating climate change.
> 
> But before I leave it for now, one more thing.....
> 
> No one I know is saying that we are not in danger from Climate Change, and no one is saying that businesses and manufacturers have to do much more to help slow things down.
> But what some of them are saying is that there are other factors involved as well - factors so far beyond our control.
> And it is in the balancing of these factors and how we try to find a way to tackle them, along with the 97% of CC evidence, that most are going to disagree.


But people ;'are' saying we're not in danger from climate change & many others believe its happening but don't realise how urgent the situation is or how catastrophic its going to get - because of the media. And, yes there are other factors, but it is human activity that is driving climate change & that is proven now beyond doubt & the evidence supporting it amasses daily. The experts have told exactly what we must do, we have to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels immediately if we are to avert runaway climate change. Have you been reading the Guardians #keepitintheground articles Silvi?

*"The science is settled - now it's all about politics"* 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/mar/16/the-biggest-story-in-the-world

This is what media balance on climate change should look like lol


----------



## Satori

^ I must say, the more I find out about TTIP the more Iike it.

http://martenscentre.eu/sites/default/files/publication-files/infocus_ttip.pdf


----------



## Ang2

noushka05 said:


> Are you as angry at Charlie Hebdo's for their anti-Semitic cartoons?
> 
> People who abuse defenceless animals make me more angry than offensive jokes or cartoons - but that's just me.


I don't understand this comment. Most people on this forum and the public in general are outraged by animal cruelty. Only those outraged by Charlie Hebdo, enough to commit mass murder, are muslims. Another reason for the new terrorist laws, to curtail further terrorist attacks on the general public under the guise of a warped ideology that doesn't belong here. For too many years, the governments have pandered to and appeased these minorities, at our expense.

From the little I know about TTIP, another reason to get out of the EU!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> That's what the government want you to think. Politics of fear - its how governments divide & conquer & how they strip away our democratic rights - its the oldest trick in the book. Its the faceless corporations we all should be worrying about. Please find out about TTIP, this poses far more of a threat to us than migrants - or even extremists Ang.
> 
> Our historical emissions alone make it our moral duty to lead the way in combatting climate change. And as most of our manufacturing is now done in China & India so a large proportion of their emissions are actually OUR emissions. Passing the buck is very convenient but its immoral.
> 
> And China is infact doing an incredible job reducing their emissions http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/14/china-coal-consumption-drops-further-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-by-equivalent-of-uk-total-in-one-year/, they put the UK & the US to shame - we should be redoubling our efforts to curb emissions - but we wont - our bent government has just been caught out BIG TIME - http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-ties-with-the-uk-government?CMP=share_btn_tw
> 
> *Revealed: BP's close ties with the UK government
> Documents show the extent of BP's influence on government policy and how their intimate relationship is at odds with UK commitments to reduce carbon emissions
> *
> Both China & India are pleading with rich countries to reduce their emissions - http://www.theguardian.com/environm...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
> 
> Are you as angry at Charlie Hebdo's for their anti-Semitic cartoons?
> 
> People who abuse defenceless animals make me more angry than offensive jokes or cartoons - but that's just me.
> 
> (Don't forget its the pro hunters that have the vast majority of arrests for violence not the sabs, but I know people hunting foxes isn't exactly your top priority  )
> 
> Oh eck James Delingpole :/ - .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know Plimer is a Professor, but he has no integrity, a proven charlatan - in bed with mining industries. Hes not only a climate change denier but an asbestos denier as well This Professor of geology claims chrysotile isn't white asbestos & it isn't a carcinogen. My OH's Uncle was a plasterer, he died a few years ago from mesothelioma caused by asbestos dust. He suffered horribly.
> 
> Here is a transcript of the conversation http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3390224.htm
> 
> The last question put to Plimer " MATT PEACOCK: _"A final question, with respect Professor, have you ever taken any money from the coal industry or the asbestos industry or their l_obbyists?"
> 
> Watch George Monbiot destroy Plimer over his lies in Heaven & Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm good at hiding my worries I guess lol But i mostly do feel sick inside. I worry about the wildlife & the natural world & my lovely children. If world leaders heed the advice of the experts we have a chance to avert the worst affects of climate change, it doesn't have to change so catastrophically. If we do nothing & carry on regardless we will trigger off an unstoppable chain reaction. One in 6 species wont be able to adapt, neither will millions of people. I don't want to live on a planet that we have destroyed for greedy selfish reasons - a planet that we could have saved if we had only listened to the 97%.
> 
> But people ;'are' saying we're not in danger from climate change & many others believe its happening but don't realise how urgent the situation is or how catastrophic its going to get - because of the media. And, yes there are other factors, but it is human activity that is driving climate change & that is proven now beyond doubt & the evidence supporting it amasses daily. The experts have told exactly what we must do, we have to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels immediately if we are to avert runaway climate change. Have you been reading the Guardians #keepitintheground articles Silvi?
> 
> *"The science is settled - now it's all about politics"*
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/mar/16/the-biggest-story-in-the-world
> 
> This is what media balance on climate change should look like lol


I will get my OH to have a look at the videos/links later on. However a quick google of James Delingpole (who I understand to be a journalist not a scientist but still someone who has researched the issue and is entitled to his opinions much as your Russel Brand and Ricky Gervais are not experts in the fields they blog/tweet about) brought up this article from todays Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-climate-zealots-says-JAMES-DELINGPOLE.html?
ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

I'm sorry to hear you worry about these things (politics/animals/climate etc) so much that you feel sick and (from the other thread) can't sleep. Tell me to shut up and mind my own business but I do say this from genuine concern for you - have you thought it might be time to take a break from it for a while? I know back in my AR days it became totally all consuming, we had no other interests, it was all we talked and thought about, it totally took over our lives and as I've said before we reached a point of facing definite prison for the things we were being drawn into which would have been career ending for both of us. We therefore reached the decision to take a complete break and both promised not to become involved in any way. It was hard and felt like betrayal of the things we believed in but going to prison wouldn't have achieved anything either. We stayed completely away from all literature/groups and organisations we had previously been involved in (this forum is the first time I've got involved in some debates on the subject). I continued to donate money but asked for no reply and absolutely no literature. I know its much harder these days with social media but I actually think that is worse for people like you who care so passionately as you are exposed to a constant drip drip which I imagine must cause a constant level of anxiety/fear/worry/anger. Just a thought and hope you don't mind me mentioning it.


----------



## silvi

noushka05 said:


> But people ;'are' saying we're not in danger from climate change...


I realised that when I got the reply I did 



noushka05 said:


> .... & many others believe its happening but don't realise how urgent the situation is or how catastrophic its going to get - because of the media. And, yes there are other factors, but *it is human activity that is driving climate change* & that is proven now beyond doubt & the evidence supporting it amasses daily. The experts have told exactly what we must do, we have to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels immediately if we are to avert runaway climate change. Have you been reading the Guardians #keepitintheground articles Silvi?
> 
> *"The science is settled - now it's all about politics"*
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/mar/16/the-biggest-story-in-the-world


I said at the start of this that _I'm_ not opposed to any of the current thinking on CC, but that members of my family are - OH for one, plus a couple of others. And we have had a few 'discussions' on the matter (yes, sometimes we are very sad people when sharing a beer or two.....).

As I said, I don't know anyone (except now someone on here, lol!) who doesn't think we are in danger from climate change. I also don't know anyone who doesn't think that we are eventually f***** if something isn't done.

What my OH in particular is arguing against is the BIB above: "it is human activity that is _driving_ climate change".
He thinks that human activity regarding emissions is _exacerbating_ climate change rather than driving it. And that, although all large corporations certainly need to be controlled in how they deal with emissions, there are other, even larger factors at hand here - many of them also man-made, but the results are now much less controllable than emissions.

That is not a fatalist stance either, more the stance that in controlling emissions (which we must do) we are putting a plaster on a gaping wound and need to look deeper for the answers and the overall solutions.

It certainly doesn't mean that we should sit back and do nothing.


----------



## Colliebarmy

This planet has had many climate changes and ice ages too, most were before the petrol/diesel engines were even thought of


----------



## Colliebarmy

Chinese and Indian factories and coal fired power stations are the biggest polluters, not our cars here in the UK


----------



## cinnamontoast

Nouska, you do make me laugh! Charlie Hebdo pokes fun at all religions, which I quite agree with, religion is the biggest hoax perpetrated by and on humankind ever. 

P.S. Please do stop going on about me being mad keen on fox hunting, that is absolute crap, you know it and I'm sick and tired of you saying this. I fail to see why I should persistently defend myself on this issue or why you like to have a go all the time. You have no idea about me so do stop pretending you know what I think. You don't.


----------



## noushka05

Satori said:


> ^ I must say, the more I find out about TTIP the more Iike it.
> 
> http://martenscentre.eu/sites/default/files/publication-files/infocus_ttip.pdf


An EU right wing think tank doesn't exactly instil me with confidence lol.

And guess what? its started already - EU dropped pesticide laws under US pressure, to facilitate *TTIP*. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ue-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal…

_US trade officials pushed EU to shelve action on endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility to facilitate TTIP free trade deal_



Ang2 said:


> I don't understand this comment. Most people on this forum and the public in general are outraged by animal cruelty. Only those outraged by Charlie Hebdo, enough to commit mass murder, are muslims. Another reason for the new terrorist laws, to curtail further terrorist attacks on the general public under the guise of a warped ideology that doesn't belong here. For too many years, the governments have pandered to and appeased these minorities, at our expense.
> 
> From the little I know about TTIP, another reason to get out of the EU!


Some on this pet forum, would you believe, are bloodsport sympathisers Ang . The point I was making with Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, it wasn't aimed at you.

Governments exploit terrorism to control us. - http://www.prisonplanet.com/economi...it-charlie-hebdo-to-eliminate-encryption.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...bdo-norway-islamophobia-france-anders-breivik



Cameron will have us locked into TTIP long before any EU referendum - hes one of the main leaders pushing for it



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I will get my OH to have a look at the videos/links later on. However a quick google of James Delingpole (who I understand to be a journalist not a scientist but still someone who has researched the issue and is entitled to his opinions much as your Russel Brand and Ricky Gervais are not experts in the fields they blog/tweet about) brought up this article from todays Mail.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-climate-zealots-says-JAMES-DELINGPOLE.html?
> ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
> 
> I'm sorry to hear you worry about these things (politics/animals/climate etc) so much that you feel sick and (from the other thread) can't sleep. Tell me to shut up and mind my own business but I do say this from genuine concern for you - have you thought it might be time to take a break from it for a while? I know back in my AR days it became totally all consuming, we had no other interests, it was all we talked and thought about, it totally took over our lives and as I've said before we reached a point of facing definite prison for the things we were being drawn into which would have been career ending for both of us. We therefore reached the decision to take a complete break and both promised not to become involved in any way. It was hard and felt like betrayal of the things we believed in but going to prison wouldn't have achieved anything either. We stayed completely away from all literature/groups and organisations we had previously been involved in (this forum is the first time I've got involved in some debates on the subject). I continued to donate money but asked for no reply and absolutely no literature. I know its much harder these days with social media but I actually think that is worse for people like you who care so passionately as you are exposed to a constant drip drip which I imagine must cause a constant level of anxiety/fear/worry/anger. Just a thought and hope you don't mind me mentioning it.


I agree, James Delingpole, like everyone, has a right to an opinion. Don't you think though RPH, that as a journalist, on important issues, he has a moral duty to report the truth? Delingpole deliberately misrepresents facts & is a habitual liar. Just a few examples of him being rapped for telling blatant lies - by the met office - http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2013/0...poles-crazy-climate-change-obsession-article/
.
Australian Press Council rules one of his articles in the 'Australian' - "highly offensive" and "the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech". http://www.readfearn.com/2013/04/the-australian-delingpole-death-sentence/

(By the way, ironically, he blocked me for voicing my opinion  )

Have you seen the lies & the bile he spouts about fox hunting & the badger cull? on Ricky Gervais & trophy hunting?

_If Gervais really cared about Africa's wildlife, he'd put his money where his mouth is - as this__fine upstanding hunter from Texas__did recently, man up and go and bag himself a rhino. (Or, if he's too chicken, a giraffe)._

Delingpole is obnoxious & cruel he has no integrity or principles - he is everything I loathe about the human race.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-badger-cull-has-actually-been-a-big-success/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...lly-cared-about-giraffes-hed-be-hunting-them/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...shouldn-t-be-illegal-it-should-be-compulsory/

At the polar end of the compassion spectrum Ricky Gervais has just been awarded the Arthur Broome bronze award for campaigning against animal cruelty on Twitter. http://media.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232737094876&mode=prd…

A recent & inspiring tweet from Ricky to his followers -
*Ricky GervaisVerified account*‏@*rickygervais*
_You bring so much change with your support of animal welfare on Twitter. From petitions to new laws. You have real power through compassion._

RETWEETS*539* FAVORITES*1,547*

1:01 AM - 24 May 2015

Anyway, are you trying to get rid of me RPH! lol Seriously though, course I don't mind you mentioning it  I believe you to be a genuinely kind person so I'm actually touched by your concern, so thank you x . The only hope for wildlife, for the vulnerable, for the planet is for the masses to stand up to those in power destroying everything & mobilse, vocalise & fight any way we can against injustice . So, I want to do what bit I can, I can't afford to bury my head in the sand. If the 97% are right & we hit that tipping point , I want my children to know that I tried my best.

A lot of people feel as despondent as I feel, theres a whole army of us on twitter lol From ordinary people, to celebrities, scientists, academics & everyone in between. So as bleak as things are at least I know I'm not alone when I log in - I know millions of people are fighting to save the things that 'really' matter.



silvi said:


> I realised that when I got the reply I did
> 
> I said at the start of this that _I'm_ not opposed to any of the current thinking on CC, but that members of my family are - OH for one, plus a couple of others. And we have had a few 'discussions' on the matter (yes, sometimes we are very sad people when sharing a beer or two.....).
> 
> As I said, I don't know anyone (except now someone on here, lol!) who doesn't think we are in danger from climate change. I also don't know anyone who doesn't think that we are eventually f***** if something isn't done.
> 
> What my OH in particular is arguing against is the BIB above: "it is human activity that is _driving_ climate change".
> He thinks that human activity regarding emissions is _exacerbating_ climate change rather than driving it. And that, although all large corporations certainly need to be controlled in how they deal with emissions, there are other, even larger factors at hand here - many of them also man-made, but the results are now much less controllable than emissions.
> 
> That is not a fatalist stance either, more the stance that in controlling emissions (which we must do) we are putting a plaster on a gaping wound and need to look deeper for the answers and the overall solutions.
> 
> It certainly doesn't mean that we should sit back and do nothing.


We 'know' unequivocally human activity is driving climate change Silvi - the IPCC have told us - and all the new science only strengthens what we know.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change

http://uk.businessinsider.com/humans-are-causing-global-warming-chart-2014-11?r=US

If we believe the worlds best climate experts we have to act NOW Silvi - its as simple as that.



Colliebarmy said:


> This planet has had many climate changes and ice ages too, most were before the petrol/diesel engines were even thought of


 

 http://morethanscientists.org/video/many-people-think-controversial/



And FYI China are doing more that WE are doing to curb their emissions 



cinnamontoast said:


> Nouska, you do make me laugh! Charlie Hebdo pokes fun at all religions, which I quite agree with, religion is the biggest hoax perpetrated by and on humankind ever.
> 
> P.S. Please do stop going on about me being mad keen on fox hunting, that is absolute crap, *you know it* and I'm sick and tired of you saying this. I fail to see why I should persistently defend myself on this issue or why you like to have a go all the time. You have no idea about me so do stop pretending you know what I think. You don't.


And Ricky Gervais pokes fun at all religions - yet (predictably) you find his jokes offensive.

I know nothing


----------



## silvi

noushka05 said:


> Governments exploit terrorism to control us. - http://www.prisonplanet.com/economi...it-charlie-hebdo-to-eliminate-encryption.html
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...bdo-norway-islamophobia-france-anders-breivik


At last!
Journalists are being brave enough to voice my misgivings after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. And they are not all of the 'tin hat' brigade.

At the time, I seemed like a lone voice on this forum, when no one appeared to understand why, although I was sickened by what happened, I was very skeptical of the response and of what the outcome would be.
Those articles voice my opinion much better than I could.

I haven't quoted your reply to me re Climate Change, because I actually do agree that we need to act now. I was simply saying that there are other views that _do not_ say we shouldn't act, but which want to look deeper _while_ we act.

And don't get me started on TTIP.... I see it as a threat to much that we in this country hold dear, but most people don't even realise it is happening


----------



## Ang2

noushka05 said:


> Some on this pet forum, would you believe, are bloodsport sympathisers Ang . The point I was making with Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, it wasn't aimed at you.


Yes, I know! I found that out when I posted about seeing young children rabbiting. I cant think of anything more horrendous than a child taking pleasure from watching a rabbit being ripped apart by dogs. And its f*ck all to do with living off the land and the rabbit going in the pot. Its about £2 for a rabbit in the market ffs. Its all about the thrill - just like fox hunting.


----------



## rona

Ang2 said:


> It was three young boys 12/13 years old with three dogs. They had a spade, sticks and a couple of dead rabbits on string, slung over the taller one's shoulder.





Ang2 said:


> Yes, I know! I found that out when I posted about seeing young children rabbiting. I cant think of anything more horrendous than a child taking pleasure from watching a rabbit being ripped apart by dogs. And its f*ck all to do with living off the land and the rabbit going in the pot. Its about £2 for a rabbit in the market ffs. Its all about the thrill - just like fox hunting.


Pray tell how rabbits that are ripped apart are slung over a shoulder or sold at a market for £2?


----------



## Ang2

rona said:


> Pray tell how rabbits that are ripped apart are slung over a shoulder or sold at a market for £2?


OK Rona, ragged to death! Not a nice death however you want to describe it.


----------



## Jesthar

Ang2 said:


> Its about £2 for a rabbit in the market ffs.


Completely off topic, but really £2? Which markets do you manage to get to, cos I've never seen 'em that cheap? Or do you have to do all the - er - 'processing' yourself at that price?


----------



## Ang2

Here you go, Noush 

*Cameron will LOSE vote to bring back fox hunting because a 'substantial number of Conservatives are against it'*

*PM expected to bring forward legislation to repeal ban within 12 months*
*But Liam Fox said there was a majority in the Commons in favour of ban*
*Former defence secretary said he backed the Prime Minister's proposal*
*However, he said a 'substantial number' of Tories would side with Labour*
By Tom McTague, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline

Published: 17:51, 24 May 2015 | Updated: 18:34, 24 May 2015

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095205/Cameron-LOSE-vote-bring-fox-hunting-substantial-number-Conservatives-against-it.html#ixzz3b5czlBNf 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Ang2

Jesthar said:


> Completely off topic, but really £2? Which markets do you manage to get to, cos I've never seen 'em that cheap? Or do you have to do all the - er - 'processing' yourself at that price?


Yep, they were strung up in a market town near York, £2.40. You had to gut and skin yourself, and they had clearly been shot!


----------



## Satori

silvi said:


> And don't get me started on TTIP.... I see it as a threat to much that we in this country hold dear, but most people don't even realise it is happening


I must mix with the wrong crowd then because everyone I know realises what is going on as regards TTIP. It is hardly a secret. I don't know anybody (in the real world) who thinks it is a bad idea though.


----------



## Jesthar

Ang2 said:


> Yep, they were strung up in a market town near York, £2.40. You had to gut and skin yourself, and they had clearly been shot!


Thought it must be 'oop norf'  'Darn sarf' you'd pay that for a portion sometimes! Wouldn't mind learning to gut and skin/pluck birds - useful life skill to have, I reckon.


----------



## chesspiece

Satori said:


> I must mix with the wrong crowd then because everyone I know realises what is going on as regards TTIP. It is hardly a secret. I don't know anybody (in the real world) who thinks it is a bad idea though.


I dont know anyone thats heard of it


----------



## Satori

chesspiece said:


> I dont know anyone thats heard of it


That's a shame.


----------



## Ang2

T


Satori said:


> That's a shame.


TBH I only just recently heard of it.


----------



## cinnamontoast

Whole rabbits are £2.50 from the Dog Food Company. I think I'd rather they were shot than snared/trapped. Hopefully the gun is a decent shot and the suffering is quick. Plucking a bird is easiest when it's still warm, pull feathers up and out, it's easy, can get messy on the downy bits. Gutting is easy. The crops always fascinate me, always stuffed full of grain, must all go to the stables and nick the horse feed!


----------



## Satori

Ang2 said:


> T
> 
> TBH I only just recently heard of it.


I've read quite a bit but, tbh, I am quite shallow and I was easily won over by 'reduce red tape and boost trade'. S'good enough for me. Here's a nice little snippet from Boris last Autumn that pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter. I can only wish it a smooth passage.

"There is absolutely nothing not to like about the TTIP. As Churchill might have said, it is altogether un-sordid. And yet virtually the only commentary we have been offered is absurdly hostile and misinformed. The debate is dominated by Left-wing misery-guts anti-globalisation campaigners. They say that the EU-US free trade deal will be a ramp for all sorts of undesirable American imports: American chickens bathed in chlorine and so genetically modified as to possess three drumsticks per bird; pale and tasteless American cheese that has been processed to the point of macrobiotic extinction; vast American gas-guzzler cars with seats that have been designed specifically for the supersized American buttock. They say that the notion of mutual free investment will lead to McDonald's being given the catering for the NHS, while JR Ewing will arrive in the Home Counties shouting yee-hah and insisting on his right to frack the place to kingdom come. The anti-TTIP panic has reached such a pitch that last week people actually demonstrated against the negotiators in London and Brussels, and across the EU.

I do not wish in any way to inflame these numskulls, but it is not just that their fears are overdone. They are talking rubbish. Almost every single objection to the current proposals is based on pure superstition. There is nothing wrong with American food, for goodness' sake. Millions of British tourists eat the stuff with every sign of enjoyment, and whatever goes on in the American meat and poultry industry, it is no more sinister than what happens over here. Fears about genetically modified organisms are a load of semi-religious mumbo-jumbo. As for American cars, they are just as safe as European cars, and their emission standards are getting tighter the whole time.

These people who worry about TTIP should try actually living in America. Try parking your recreational vehicle outside the designated oblong in Yosemite national park or try reading the encyclopaedic information on the side of a carton of orange juice, and you will see that America is about the most regulated market on earth. If we get the TTIP agreed, it will certainly not mean the privatisation of the NHS, and nor will it mean a green light for fracking Sussex. At the very most it will mean that there is some protection against government deciding - locally, at state level, or nationally - to legislate in some arbitrary and unexpected way so as to discriminate against foreign companies. That strikes me as a very useful thing for British companies, both large and small.

This new free-trade pact with America is not a threat: it is a sensational opportunity to break down the remaining barriers to trade with the country that already takes 17 per cent of our exports - the biggest single export destination for Britain. There is a big and growing market for the aerospace sector, in which Britain is strong: many US airlines are renewing their fleets. There is the chance to build on the amazing success of British car manufacturing, with fuel-efficient cars for the top of the market. America is the home to more affluent households - with disposable income of more than $300,000 - than any other country. The US is therefore a superb market for luxury British brands. The Americans want more and more of the stuff we are good at: apps, life sciences, media, culture, you name it.

The tariff barriers between us are now low - down to 3 per cent. But it is the non-tariff barriers that need to be blown away, the fiddly stipulations that are furtively used to keep out foreign competition. If we can get the EU-US free trade pact done in the next 12 months, we will boost the British economy by about £10 billion per year, and boost the whole of the EU by £100 billion. That is not to be sneezed at - not when the eurozone is once again dangling over the lip of a downturn.

This pact is a massive potential win for humanity - the closer economic union between two vast territories that share a tradition of democracy, free speech, pluralism: the Western values that are under threat in so many other parts of the world; and where almost everyone has English as a first or second language. Trade between Europe and the US is already worth $4.7 trillion; this is the chance to go further. If the EU can't pull it off, we in Britain should offer to go first and do it ourselves."


----------



## Satori

noushka05 said:


> An EU right wing think tank doesn't exactly instil me with confidence lol.


You are right. I need more credible sources. Hmmmm...... how about drug-addled, ignorant, multi-millionaire, pseudo-socialist comedian?


----------



## Jesthar

Hmm. I thought the main problem most people who have a problem with TTIP have was the ability mega-corporations could get to sue entities/goverments who get in the way of their profits


----------



## Satori

Jesthar said:


> Hmm. I thought the main problem most people who have a problem with TTIP have was the ability mega-corporations could get to sue entities/goverments who get in the way of their profits


I doubt that most people who have a problem with TTIP have bothered to look into the topic.


----------



## Jesthar

Satori said:


> I doubt that most people who have a problem with TTIP have bothered to look into the topic.


Oddly enough, it's the only part I've heard people talking about. Usually in the context of corporations being able to sue even governments if, say, they introduce new labour, H&S or environmental laws that reduce the companies profit margins, that kind of thing.


----------



## rona

Satori said:


> The debate is dominated by Left-wing misery-guts anti-globalisation campaigners


While I agree that the left wing misery guts are going too far with many of their crusades through social media.
Scaring the more vulnerable of our society.



Satori said:


> This pact is a massive potential win for humanity - the closer economic union between two vast territories


I cannot agree that anything based purely on economics and profit can be seen as a massive potential win for humanity


----------



## Colliebarmy

Satori said:


> You are right. I need more credible sources. Hmmmm...... how about drug-addled, ignorant, multi-millionaire, pseudo-socialist comedian?


How about whoever was writing his scripts though?


----------



## cinnamontoast

Satori said:


> You are right. I need more credible sources. Hmmmm...... how about drug-addled, ignorant, multi-millionaire, pseudo-socialist comedian?


What, one who suggests that all horse riders should fall and break their effing necks and wonders when we are going to 'go extinct'?!one who should perhaps get off his social media platform and get out and actually do something about the causes he claims to support rather than constantly rabble rouse by appealing to the violent easily persuaded section of society? Nah, ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Satori

Jesthar said:


> Hmm. I thought the main problem most people who have a problem with TTIP have was the ability mega-corporations could get to sue entities/goverments who get in the way of their profits


To give your post the fuller response it deserves.....The scaremongering about this is a reference to ISDS provisions which have been deliberately mis-construed by certain major newspapers. ISDS is not completely problem-free but it is not there to protect profits it is there to protect rights.

The centre for strategic and international studies published a decent report on the area in February. It's a long report but the executive summary is this.....

"
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a provision in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and other international investment agreements that allows investors to enter arbitration with states over treaty breaches, has become controversial in the United States and our negotiating partners. Critics, including some governments, have argued that ISDS is unnecessary while others insist it is illegitimate as public policy.

This report is an empirical review of ISDS, based on the record of disputes under existing investment treaties. The key findings are as follows:


Over 90 percent of the nearly 2,400 BITs in force have operated without a single investor claim of a treaty breach.

The number of disputes filed in the past 10 years has increased. Overall, the rise in disputes has been proportional to the rise in outward foreign capital stock. There are more disputes, but there are also more investors and more capital invested abroad.

Investors from large capital-exporting economies are active users of ISDS. European countries are a party to over 1,200 BITs and account for 46 percent of global foreign direct investment (FDI) stock; in the past decade European investors have filed more than half of investment arbitration claims. Similarly, the United States is responsible for 24 percent of outward FDI stock; U.S. investors have filed 22 percent of ISDS claims.

Many disputes arise in economic sectors characterized by high levels of state intervention. About 40 percent of filed ISDS claims are in oil, gas, mining, and power generation, sectors that often feature prominent state involvement.

Disputes are also most frequent in states with weak legal institutions. Argentina (53 claims) and Venezuela (36 claims) are the leading respondent states.

About a third of ISDS cases are settled in advance of a ruling. For disputes that end in an arbitral decision, states win about twice as often as investors. When investors do prevail, awards are a small fraction of the initial claim-on average, less than 10 cents on the dollar.

Investors generally recognize that ISDS is expensive and time-consuming, on par with complex civil litigation. While arbitration offers neutrality and finality, investors are typically aware of the low likelihood of prevailing and the risk that filing a claim presents to their future operations.

Many of the criticisms of ISDS are overblown. Some claim that ISDS gives investors "special rights," yet most treaty protections are identical to universal civil rights accorded most citizens. Further, critics exaggerate the notion that investors "sue to overturn regulations"; BITs explicitly limit awards to monetary damages. Finally, conflating ISDS with "big corporations" ignores that most U.S. investors who have filed investment arbitration claims are individuals or firms with fewer than 500 employees.

Treaty-based investment protection represents a major advance in the fair treatment of aliens and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Given the alternatives, withdrawing from investment treaties-the logical conclusion of the critics' position-would likely have negative consequences for economic growth and the rule of law. 
"


----------



## noushka05

silvi said:


> At last!
> Journalists are being brave enough to voice my misgivings after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. And they are not all of the 'tin hat' brigade.
> 
> At the time, I seemed like a lone voice on this forum, when no one appeared to understand why, although I was sickened by what happened, I was very skeptical of the response and of what the outcome would be.
> Those articles voice my opinion much better than I could.
> 
> I haven't quoted your reply to me re Climate Change, because I actually do agree that we need to act now. I was simply saying that there are other views that _do not_ say we shouldn't act, but which want to look deeper _while_ we act.
> 
> And don't get me started on TTIP.... I see it as a threat to much that we in this country hold dear, but most people don't even realise it is happening


Did you see this article, the other day, in Mirror on the subject? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/government-crackdown-islamic-extremists-criticised-5693291 Worrying times for peaceful protesters ahead. They've already brought in the gagging bill to silence charities who speak out against damaging government policies before an election.

Our democracy is being dismantled bit by bit along with our NHS.

TTIP is the final nail in the coffin for both. I found this excellent piece on TTIP & Neoliberalism

http://radicalsoapbox.com/is-neo-liberalism-really-fascism-light/



Ang2 said:


> Yes, I know! I found that out when I posted about seeing young children rabbiting. I cant think of anything more horrendous than a child taking pleasure from watching a rabbit being ripped apart by dogs. And its f*ck all to do with living off the land and the rabbit going in the pot. Its about £2 for a rabbit in the market ffs. Its all about the thrill - just like fox hunting.


Desensitizing children to animal suffering is a slippery slope imo. Killing becomes 'fun' & compassion for animals goes outta the window. Ive seen it happen to loads of people in my lifetime. I'm so proud my boys didn't turn out like that.



Ang2 said:


> Here you go, Noush
> 
> *Cameron will LOSE vote to bring back fox hunting because a 'substantial number of Conservatives are against it'*
> 
> *PM expected to bring forward legislation to repeal ban within 12 months*
> *But Liam Fox said there was a majority in the Commons in favour of ban*
> *Former defence secretary said he backed the Prime Minister's proposal*
> *However, he said a 'substantial number' of Tories would side with Labour*
> By Tom McTague, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline
> 
> Published: 17:51, 24 May 2015 | Updated: 18:34, 24 May 2015
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095205/Cameron-LOSE-vote-bring-fox-hunting-substantial-number-Conservatives-against-it.html#ixzz3b5czlBNf
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Thank you Ang. I really pray he's right but I'm afraid I fear the worst.



Satori said:


> I must mix with the wrong crowd then because everyone I know realises what is going on as regards TTIP. It is hardly a secret. I don't know anybody (in the real world) who thinks it is a bad idea though.


It was very much a secret until George Monbiot broke the story in the Guardian & it went viral! Everyone I mentioned it to had never heard of it until I told them. Now had they watched the TREWS they would have known about it 



Satori said:


> I've read quite a bit but, tbh, I am quite shallow and I was easily won over by 'reduce red tape and boost trade'. S'good enough for me. Here's a nice little snippet from Boris last Autumn that pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter. I can only wish it a smooth passage.
> 
> "There is absolutely nothing not to like about the TTIP. As Churchill might have said, it is altogether un-sordid. And yet virtually the only commentary we have been offered is absurdly hostile and misinformed. The debate is dominated by Left-wing misery-guts anti-globalisation campaigners. They say that the EU-US free trade deal will be a ramp for all sorts of undesirable American imports: American chickens bathed in chlorine and so genetically modified as to possess three drumsticks per bird; pale and tasteless American cheese that has been processed to the point of macrobiotic extinction; vast American gas-guzzler cars with seats that have been designed specifically for the supersized American buttock. They say that the notion of mutual free investment will lead to McDonald's being given the catering for the NHS, while JR Ewing will arrive in the Home Counties shouting yee-hah and insisting on his right to frack the place to kingdom come. The anti-TTIP panic has reached such a pitch that last week people actually demonstrated against the negotiators in London and Brussels, and across the EU.
> 
> I do not wish in any way to inflame these numskulls, but it is not just that their fears are overdone. They are talking rubbish. Almost every single objection to the current proposals is based on pure superstition. There is nothing wrong with American food, for goodness' sake. Millions of British tourists eat the stuff with every sign of enjoyment, and whatever goes on in the American meat and poultry industry, it is no more sinister than what happens over here. Fears about genetically modified organisms are a load of semi-religious mumbo-jumbo. As for American cars, they are just as safe as European cars, and their emission standards are getting tighter the whole time.
> 
> These people who worry about TTIP should try actually living in America. Try parking your recreational vehicle outside the designated oblong in Yosemite national park or try reading the encyclopaedic information on the side of a carton of orange juice, and you will see that America is about the most regulated market on earth. If we get the TTIP agreed, it will certainly not mean the privatisation of the NHS, and nor will it mean a green light for fracking Sussex. At the very most it will mean that there is some protection against government deciding - locally, at state level, or nationally - to legislate in some arbitrary and unexpected way so as to discriminate against foreign companies. That strikes me as a very useful thing for British companies, both large and small.
> 
> This new free-trade pact with America is not a threat: it is a sensational opportunity to break down the remaining barriers to trade with the country that already takes 17 per cent of our exports - the biggest single export destination for Britain. There is a big and growing market for the aerospace sector, in which Britain is strong: many US airlines are renewing their fleets. There is the chance to build on the amazing success of British car manufacturing, with fuel-efficient cars for the top of the market. America is the home to more affluent households - with disposable income of more than $300,000 - than any other country. The US is therefore a superb market for luxury British brands. The Americans want more and more of the stuff we are good at: apps, life sciences, media, culture, you name it.
> 
> The tariff barriers between us are now low - down to 3 per cent. But it is the non-tariff barriers that need to be blown away, the fiddly stipulations that are furtively used to keep out foreign competition. If we can get the EU-US free trade pact done in the next 12 months, we will boost the British economy by about £10 billion per year, and boost the whole of the EU by £100 billion. That is not to be sneezed at - not when the eurozone is once again dangling over the lip of a downturn.
> 
> This pact is a massive potential win for humanity - the closer economic union between two vast territories that share a tradition of democracy, free speech, pluralism: the Western values that are under threat in so many other parts of the world; and where almost everyone has English as a first or second language. Trade between Europe and the US is already worth $4.7 trillion; this is the chance to go further. If the EU can't pull it off, we in Britain should offer to go first and do it ourselves."


I dont believe you're really that shallow Satori - i think (i may be wrong) a lot of what you say is tongue in cheek I'm sure Boris really knows that EU food standards, animal welfare standards, environmental standards are far superior to the USA's lol. And if everything is so rosy, why is there so much secrecy surrounding the deal?



Satori said:


> You are right. I need more credible sources. Hmmmm...... how about drug-addled, ignorant, multi-millionaire, pseudo-socialist comedian?


Brand has a team of researchers & he interviews experts. So, unlike Boris, his opinions are actually based on facts.



rona said:


> While I agree that the left wing misery guts are going too far with many of their crusades through social media.
> Scaring the more vulnerable of our society.
> 
> I cannot agree that anything based purely on economics and profit can be seen as a massive potential win for humanity


I know this couldn't possibly be aimed at me lol But I suspect it isn't the left wing misery guts scaring the more vulenerable in our society Rona, but actual 'facts' like the ones below & the prospect of billions more cuts to come. I also suspect the more vulnerable are wishing more people had a social conscience.



Economics & profit over everything else is the free market capitalism ideology. TTIP merely ramps it up & locks us into neoliberalism forever.



cinnamontoast said:


> What, one who suggests that all horse riders should fall and break their effing necks and wonders when we are going to 'go extinct'?!one who should perhaps get off his social media platform and get out and actually do something about the causes he claims to support rather than constantly rabble rouse by appealing to the violent easily persuaded section of society? Nah, ain't gonna happen.


Oh assumed Satori was talking about Brand not Gervais :/



Satori said:


> To give your post the fuller response it deserves.....The scaremongering about this is a reference to ISDS provisions which have been deliberately mis-construed by certain major newspapers. ISDS is not completely problem-free but it is not there to protect profits it is there to protect rights.
> 
> The centre for strategic and international studies published a decent report on the area in February. It's a long report but the executive summary is this.....
> 
> "
> Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a provision in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and other international investment agreements that allows investors to enter arbitration with states over treaty breaches, has become controversial in the United States and our negotiating partners. Critics, including some governments, have argued that ISDS is unnecessary while others insist it is illegitimate as public policy.
> 
> This report is an empirical review of ISDS, based on the record of disputes under existing investment treaties. The key findings are as follows:
> 
> 
> Over 90 percent of the nearly 2,400 BITs in force have operated without a single investor claim of a treaty breach.
> 
> The number of disputes filed in the past 10 years has increased. Overall, the rise in disputes has been proportional to the rise in outward foreign capital stock. There are more disputes, but there are also more investors and more capital invested abroad.
> 
> Investors from large capital-exporting economies are active users of ISDS. European countries are a party to over 1,200 BITs and account for 46 percent of global foreign direct investment (FDI) stock; in the past decade European investors have filed more than half of investment arbitration claims. Similarly, the United States is responsible for 24 percent of outward FDI stock; U.S. investors have filed 22 percent of ISDS claims.
> 
> Many disputes arise in economic sectors characterized by high levels of state intervention. About 40 percent of filed ISDS claims are in oil, gas, mining, and power generation, sectors that often feature prominent state involvement.
> 
> Disputes are also most frequent in states with weak legal institutions. Argentina (53 claims) and Venezuela (36 claims) are the leading respondent states.
> 
> About a third of ISDS cases are settled in advance of a ruling. For disputes that end in an arbitral decision, states win about twice as often as investors. When investors do prevail, awards are a small fraction of the initial claim-on average, less than 10 cents on the dollar.
> 
> Investors generally recognize that ISDS is expensive and time-consuming, on par with complex civil litigation. While arbitration offers neutrality and finality, investors are typically aware of the low likelihood of prevailing and the risk that filing a claim presents to their future operations.
> 
> Many of the criticisms of ISDS are overblown. Some claim that ISDS gives investors "special rights," yet most treaty protections are identical to universal civil rights accorded most citizens. Further, critics exaggerate the notion that investors "sue to overturn regulations"; BITs explicitly limit awards to monetary damages. Finally, conflating ISDS with "big corporations" ignores that most U.S. investors who have filed investment arbitration claims are individuals or firms with fewer than 500 employees.
> 
> Treaty-based investment protection represents a major advance in the fair treatment of aliens and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Given the alternatives, withdrawing from investment treaties-the logical conclusion of the critics' position-would likely have negative consequences for economic growth and the rule of law.
> "


 This is being lobbied for by the big agri-businesses, the big pharmaceutical companies & the big banks. What they want to do is cut hard fought & won standards of regulations. Even one of Camerons own back benchers said TTIP was a race to the bottom in terms of standards. The only beneficiaries of TTIP are big businesses. It gives them even more powers while impoverishing everyone else.


----------



## patsymatsy




----------

