The General Election Thread

[Rascal]

Red Ed Balls, the man who wants to be Chancellor

"If you abolish the whole status it will end up costing Britain money because some people will leave the country" @edballsmp 3/4

"But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will" was how Ed ended the interview.
Strange how you ( and the Tories) edited that bit out of the interview.
If you're interested Labour are not abolishing the WHOLE rule, they are modifying them by something known as the temporary residents allowance, but I guess you're not interested in the facts.

The important part is "cost Britain money", more sound bite over policy from the Red Ed's again.

I would be interested to know Lucky why you think the 6th richest country in the world has so many poor people.

Please try and avoid the usual "lazy feckless" rhetoric if possible

Cheers

 

[whp.blue]

"But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will" was how Ed ended the interview.
Strange how you ( and the Tories) edited that bit out of the interview.
If you're interested Labour are not abolishing the WHOLE rule, they are modifying them by something known as the temporary residents allowance, but I guess you're not interested in the facts.

The important part is "cost Britain money", more sound bite over policy from the Red Ed's again.

I would be interested to know Lucky why you think the 6th richest country in the world has so many poor people.

Please try and avoid the usual "lazy feckless" rhetoric if possible

Cheers

There are various schools of thought regarding economic inequality.

1:Marxism favours an eventual society where distribution is based on an individual's needs rather than social class or other such factors.

2:Meritocracy favours an eventual society where an individual's success is a direct function of contribution reflecting an individual's skills and effort, and detrimental (this is a value judgement) inasmuch as it represent inherited or unjustified wealth or opportunities.

3:Classical liberals and libertarians generally do not take a stance on wealth inequality, but believe in equality under the law regardless of whether it leads to unequal wealth distribution.
Arguments based on social justice favour a more equal distribution making claims economic inequality weakens societies, although counter-arguments are made that inequality might benefit societies.

We obviously don't have enough people who understand we live under the second system and think they don't have to contribute in order to be rewarded. and that is why we have so may poor people in a rich Country.
or to put it another way

Britain is a meritocracy, and everyone with skill and imagination and with effort may aspire to reach the highest level

 

[Rascal]

The important part is "cost Britain money", more sound bite over policy from the Red Ed's again.

I would be interested to know Lucky why you think the 6th richest country in the world has so many poor people.

Please try and avoid the usual "lazy feckless" rhetoric if possible

Cheers

There are various schools of thought regarding economic inequality.

1:Marxism favours an eventual society where distribution is based on an individual's needs rather than social class or other such factors.

2:Meritocracy favours an eventual society where an individual's success is a direct function of contribution reflecting an individual's skills and effort, and detrimental (this is a value judgement) inasmuch as it represent inherited or unjustified wealth or opportunities.

3:Classical liberals and libertarians generally do not take a stance on wealth inequality, but believe in equality under the law regardless of whether it leads to unequal wealth distribution.
Arguments based on social justice favour a more equal distribution making claims economic inequality weakens societies, although counter-arguments are made that inequality might benefit societies.

We obviously don't have enough people who understand we live under the second system and think they don't have to contribute in order to be rewarded. and that is why we have so may poor people in a rich Country.
or to put it another way

Britain is a meritocracy, and everyone with skill and imagination and with effort may aspire to reach the highest level

Aspiration,contribution and achievement are not mutually producive though, hence the fatal flaw in meritocratic thinking.

Explaining the poor on a failure to understand how a meritocracy works is a total fallacy as it fails in that for a true meritocracy to succeed that has to be equality of opportunity for all. That is clearly not the case in the UK.

So why do we have so many poor people in the 6th richest country on the planet and how would you solve the problem?

 

[whp.blue]

I would be interested to know Lucky why you think the 6th richest country in the world has so many poor people.

Please try and avoid the usual "lazy feckless" rhetoric if possible

Cheers

There are various schools of thought regarding economic inequality.

1:Marxism favours an eventual society where distribution is based on an individual's needs rather than social class or other such factors.

2:Meritocracy favours an eventual society where an individual's success is a direct function of contribution reflecting an individual's skills and effort, and detrimental (this is a value judgement) inasmuch as it represent inherited or unjustified wealth or opportunities.

3:Classical liberals and libertarians generally do not take a stance on wealth inequality, but believe in equality under the law regardless of whether it leads to unequal wealth distribution.
Arguments based on social justice favour a more equal distribution making claims economic inequality weakens societies, although counter-arguments are made that inequality might benefit societies.

We obviously don't have enough people who understand we live under the second system and think they don't have to contribute in order to be rewarded. and that is why we have so may poor people in a rich Country.
or to put it another way

Britain is a meritocracy, and everyone with skill and imagination and with effort may aspire to reach the highest level

Aspiration,contribution and achievement are not mutually producive though, hence the fatal flaw in meritocratic thinking.

Explaining the poor on a failure to understand how a meritocracy works is a total fallacy as it fails in that for a true meritocracy to succeed that has to be equality of opportunity for all. That is clearly not the case in the UK.

So why do we have so many poor people in the 6th richest country on the planet and how would you solve the problem?

Your second point is quite frankly bollocks nothing in this country stops anyone from succeeding every body has enough of an opportunity to better themselves if they are prepared to put some effort in. God we even have companies like Remploy who employ just disabled people so they can get on in life. Everyone in this country gets an equal opportunity to excel just that some people don't take the opportunities given to them. Instead they pine for some sort of easy life under some nannyfied left wing state.

 

[kaz7]

There are various schools of thought regarding economic inequality.

1:Marxism favours an eventual society where distribution is based on an individual's needs rather than social class or other such factors.

2:Meritocracy favours an eventual society where an individual's success is a direct function of contribution reflecting an individual's skills and effort, and detrimental (this is a value judgement) inasmuch as it represent inherited or unjustified wealth or opportunities.

3:Classical liberals and libertarians generally do not take a stance on wealth inequality, but believe in equality under the law regardless of whether it leads to unequal wealth distribution.
Arguments based on social justice favour a more equal distribution making claims economic inequality weakens societies, although counter-arguments are made that inequality might benefit societies.

We obviously don't have enough people who understand we live under the second system and think they don't have to contribute in order to be rewarded. and that is why we have so may poor people in a rich Country.
or to put it another way

Britain is a meritocracy, and everyone with skill and imagination and with effort may aspire to reach the highest level

Aspiration,contribution and achievement are not mutually producive though, hence the fatal flaw in meritocratic thinking.

Explaining the poor on a failure to understand how a meritocracy works is a total fallacy as it fails in that for a true meritocracy to succeed that has to be equality of opportunity for all. That is clearly not the case in the UK.

So why do we have so many poor people in the 6th richest country on the planet and how would you solve the problem?

Your second point is quite frankly bollocks nothing in this country stops anyone from succeeding every body has enough of an opportunity to better themselves if they are prepared to put some effort in. God we even have companies like Remploy who employ just disabled people so they can get on in life. Everyone in this country gets an equal opportunity to excel just that some people don't take the opportunities given to them. Instead they pine for some sort of easy life under some nannyfied left wing state.

Tories have closed Remploy's down,not many of those disabled workers will get another job

 

[carlosthejackal]

I would be interested to know Lucky why you think the 6th richest country in the world has so many poor people.

Please try and avoid the usual "lazy feckless" rhetoric if possible

Cheers

There are various schools of thought regarding economic inequality.

1:Marxism favours an eventual society where distribution is based on an individual's needs rather than social class or other such factors.

2:Meritocracy favours an eventual society where an individual's success is a direct function of contribution reflecting an individual's skills and effort, and detrimental (this is a value judgement) inasmuch as it represent inherited or unjustified wealth or opportunities.

3:Classical liberals and libertarians generally do not take a stance on wealth inequality, but believe in equality under the law regardless of whether it leads to unequal wealth distribution.
Arguments based on social justice favour a more equal distribution making claims economic inequality weakens societies, although counter-arguments are made that inequality might benefit societies.

We obviously don't have enough people who understand we live under the second system and think they don't have to contribute in order to be rewarded. and that is why we have so may poor people in a rich Country.
or to put it another way

Britain is a meritocracy, and everyone with skill and imagination and with effort may aspire to reach the highest level

Aspiration,contribution and achievement are not mutually producive though, hence the fatal flaw in meritocratic thinking.

Explaining the poor on a failure to understand how a meritocracy works is a total fallacy as it fails in that for a true meritocracy to succeed that has to be equality of opportunity for all. That is clearly not the case in the UK.

So why do we have so many poor people in the 6th richest country on the planet and how would you solve the problem?

Would any system give equal opportunity for all? Eventually money and power would always corrupt somebody . The other question is how you judge poor.

 

[Len Rum]

Huge fuck up with the 'non-dom' tax status today. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Miliband next speaks to Balls......I wonder if he can even give a bollocking out!

At
Straws
Clutching

Not really. Big fuck up, regardless of how you want it painting.

Even if it was a fcuk up ( which it wasn't), the case for this is overwhelming and Ed has scored another victory, hence his lead in the latest polls.
Why should non doms be treated favourably in this way?
Answers on a postcard please.

 

[CityStu]

I would be interested to know Lucky why you think the 6th richest country in the world has so many poor people.

Please try and avoid the usual "lazy feckless" rhetoric if possible

Cheers

There are various schools of thought regarding economic inequality.

1:Marxism favours an eventual society where distribution is based on an individual's needs rather than social class or other such factors.

2:Meritocracy favours an eventual society where an individual's success is a direct function of contribution reflecting an individual's skills and effort, and detrimental (this is a value judgement) inasmuch as it represent inherited or unjustified wealth or opportunities.

3:Classical liberals and libertarians generally do not take a stance on wealth inequality, but believe in equality under the law regardless of whether it leads to unequal wealth distribution.
Arguments based on social justice favour a more equal distribution making claims economic inequality weakens societies, although counter-arguments are made that inequality might benefit societies.

We obviously don't have enough people who understand we live under the second system and think they don't have to contribute in order to be rewarded. and that is why we have so may poor people in a rich Country.
or to put it another way

Britain is a meritocracy, and everyone with skill and imagination and with effort may aspire to reach the highest level

Aspiration,contribution and achievement are not mutually producive though, hence the fatal flaw in meritocratic thinking.

Explaining the poor on a failure to understand how a meritocracy works is a total fallacy as it fails in that for a true meritocracy to succeed that has to be equality of opportunity for all. That is clearly not the case in the UK.

So why do we have so many poor people in the 6th richest country on the planet and how would you solve the problem?

What's your definition of poor? If you're willing to use a global comparison in saying the UK is the 6th richest country in the world, then I'd be willing to argue that the average UK citizen is far better off in terms of personal finance and standard of living than the vast majority of people in the world.

 

[whp.blue]

Aspiration,contribution and achievement are not mutually producive though, hence the fatal flaw in meritocratic thinking.

Explaining the poor on a failure to understand how a meritocracy works is a total fallacy as it fails in that for a true meritocracy to succeed that has to be equality of opportunity for all. That is clearly not the case in the UK.

So why do we have so many poor people in the 6th richest country on the planet and how would you solve the problem?

Your second point is quite frankly bollocks nothing in this country stops anyone from succeeding every body has enough of an opportunity to better themselves if they are prepared to put some effort in. God we even have companies like Remploy who employ just disabled people so they can get on in life. Everyone in this country gets an equal opportunity to excel just that some people don't take the opportunities given to them. Instead they pine for some sort of easy life under some nannyfied left wing state.

Tories have closed Remploy's down,not many of those disabled workers will get another job

oops missed that one if I am honest. There is a boarded up one near one of my premises but I just thought that one had closed. However my point stands that until very recently then the disabled could work.

 

[kaz7]

Your second point is quite frankly bollocks nothing in this country stops anyone from succeeding every body has enough of an opportunity to better themselves if they are prepared to put some effort in. God we even have companies like Remploy who employ just disabled people so they can get on in life. Everyone in this country gets an equal opportunity to excel just that some people don't take the opportunities given to them. Instead they pine for some sort of easy life under some nannyfied left wing state.

Tories have closed Remploy's down,not many of those disabled workers will get another job

oops missed that one if I am honest. There is a boarded up one near one of my premises but I just thought that one had closed. However my point stands that until very recently then the disabled could work.

The lucky few who had the Remploy jobs could work
I can't tell you how many disabled people are in this country but i am one of them and i can't work anymore

 

[smudgedj]

At
Straws
Clutching

Not really. Big fuck up, regardless of how you want it painting.

Even if it was a fcuk up ( which it wasn't), the case for this is overwhelming and Ed has scored another victory, hence his lead in the latest polls.
Why should non doms be treated favourably in this way?
Answers on a postcard please.

Labour Creating a world of fun for creative tax dodgers.

 

[Len Rum]

Not really. Big fuck up, regardless of how you want it painting.

Even if it was a fcuk up ( which it wasn't), the case for this is overwhelming and Ed has scored another victory, hence his lead in the latest polls.
Why should non doms be treated favourably in this way?
Answers on a postcard please.

Labour Creating a world of fun for creative tax dodgers.

Oh alright then just let them get away with it, in fact why bother taxing them at all?

 

[whp.blue]

Tories have closed Remploy's down,not many of those disabled workers will get another job

oops missed that one if I am honest. There is a boarded up one near one of my premises but I just thought that one had closed. However my point stands that until very recently then the disabled could work.

The lucky few who had the Remploy jobs could work
I can't tell you how many disabled people are in this country but i am one of them and i can't work anymore

Never in any of my posts have I ever stated that Disabled people should not be entitled to Benefits .
My wife has worked all her life but is now Disabled ok she doesn't need to work but I understand the issues, that said I would have no qualms about removing the financial crutch that some people have used all their lives.
Despite what the left wingers would have you believe I came from Wythenshawe where there are families who are 2nd and 3rd generation benefit scroungers and that isn't Daily Mail propaganda that is fact.
These are the people I have issue with and have no sympathy for.

 

[Rascal]

Your second point is quite frankly bollocks nothing in this country stops anyone from succeeding every body has enough of an opportunity to better themselves if they are prepared to put some effort in. God we even have companies like Remploy who employ just disabled people so they can get on in life. Everyone in this country gets an equal opportunity to excel just that some people don't take the opportunities given to them. Instead they pine for some sort of easy life under some nannyfied left wing state.

You sound as out of touch with reality as Cameron and his Bullingdon boys.

Not everybody in the country gets the same opportunity. If you are born in a run down already poverty stricken area in comparison to being born in Bramhall your life chances are already diminished regardless. Your schooling will be worse, your health will be worse, your diet will be worse. You can aspire and work as hard as you can and still never get the chances of a person who happened to grow up in a place where wealth is accrued easier. There are exceptions of course but not what a meritocracy should produce.

As for poor how can it possibly be right that in the last 12 months we have had nearly 1 million families of which a third were in work having to use a foodbank. That is appaling in the 6th richest country in the world. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury said he has seen poverty worse in the UK that in the Congo. How is that right?

So how would you help the 300,000 families who work hard but have to use foodbanks to survive escape the poverty they are in. I doubt you preaching meritocracy to them is going to work as they already aspire and work hard but have not had the life chances a true meritocratic society should offer them.

 

[kaz7]

oops missed that one if I am honest. There is a boarded up one near one of my premises but I just thought that one had closed. However my point stands that until very recently then the disabled could work.

The lucky few who had the Remploy jobs could work
I can't tell you how many disabled people are in this country but i am one of them and i can't work anymore

Never in any of my posts have I ever stated that Disabled people should not be entitled to Benefits .
My wife has worked all her life but is now Disabled ok she doesn't need to work but I understand the issues, that said I would have no qualms about removing the financial crutch that some people have used all their lives.
Despite what the left wingers would have you believe I came from Wythenshawe where there are families who are 2nd and 3rd generation benefit scroungers and that isn't Daily Mail propaganda that is fact.
These are the people I have issue with and have no sympathy for.

Fair enough,i wasn't implying you had a problem with the disabled getting benefits
sorry if it came across that way

 

[TangerineSteve17]

You know that saying you only get out what you put in - well it's a load of crap because not everyone has a fair start. Never will.

 

[117 M34]

Your second point is quite frankly bollocks nothing in this country stops anyone from succeeding every body has enough of an opportunity to better themselves if they are prepared to put some effort in. God we even have companies like Remploy who employ just disabled people so they can get on in life. Everyone in this country gets an equal opportunity to excel just that some people don't take the opportunities given to them. Instead they pine for some sort of easy life under some nannyfied left wing state.

Not everybody in the country gets the same opportunity. If you are born in a run down already poverty stricken area in comparison to being born in Bramhall your life chances are already diminished regardless. Your schooling will be worse, your health will be worse, your diet will be worse. You can aspire and work as hard as you can and still never get the chances of a person who happened to grow up in a place where wealth is accrued easier. There are exceptions of course but not what a meritocracy should produce.

Is that not the same in every country in the world? Would that be any different with a different political party in power?

As for poor how can it possibly be right that in the last 12 months we have had nearly 1 million families of which a third were in work having to use a foodbank. That is appaling in the 6th richest country in the world. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury said he has seen poverty worse in the UK that in the Congo. How is that right?

Stats showing rising use of food banks pisses me off.
3 years ago, I had never heard of food banks and never knew they existed. Then, as a result of the economic collapse, they had to be used more often, by more people. This news was all over the papers and tv which IMO showed people who had, like me, never heard of food banks that they existed. They then decided that they would use them. So, what I'm trying to say is that the rise in their use is not born out of need (barring the early rise in their use), but is a result of the media exposure around them which has educated people about their existence.

 

[whp.blue]

Your second point is quite frankly bollocks nothing in this country stops anyone from succeeding every body has enough of an opportunity to better themselves if they are prepared to put some effort in. God we even have companies like Remploy who employ just disabled people so they can get on in life. Everyone in this country gets an equal opportunity to excel just that some people don't take the opportunities given to them. Instead they pine for some sort of easy life under some nannyfied left wing state.

You sound as out of touch with reality as Cameron and his Bullingdon boys.

Not everybody in the country gets the same opportunity. If you are born in a run down already poverty stricken area in comparison to being born in Bramhall your life chances are already diminished regardless. Your schooling will be worse, your health will be worse, your diet will be worse. You can aspire and work as hard as you can and still never get the chances of a person who happened to grow up in a place where wealth is accrued easier. There are exceptions of course but not what a meritocracy should produce.

As for poor how can it possibly be right that in the last 12 months we have had nearly 1 million families of which a third were in work having to use a foodbank. That is appaling in the 6th richest country in the world. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury said he has seen poverty worse in the UK that in the Congo. How is that right?

So how would you help the 300,000 families who work hard but have to use foodbanks to survive escape the poverty they are in. I doubt you preaching meritocracy to them is going to work as they already aspire and work hard but have not had the life chances a true meritocratic society should offer them.

You talk some absolute drivel
I was born in Wythenshawe FFS doesn't come much more run down than that I own two Businesses and Employ 40 people when my wife became disabled I sold a much bigger business so I could spend more time at home. So how much opportunity do people need?

And have you got statistics stating how many of those people using food banks smoke or own a pet or a car or drink alcohol? Using a foodbank may just be a means to stretch their money for other reasons. Some people make bad choices why should people who make better choices in life pay for their mistakes?

 

[Scottyboi]

Your second point is quite frankly bollocks nothing in this country stops anyone from succeeding every body has enough of an opportunity to better themselves if they are prepared to put some effort in. God we even have companies like Remploy who employ just disabled people so they can get on in life. Everyone in this country gets an equal opportunity to excel just that some people don't take the opportunities given to them. Instead they pine for some sort of easy life under some nannyfied left wing state.

You sound as out of touch with reality as Cameron and his Bullingdon boys.

Not everybody in the country gets the same opportunity. If you are born in a run down already poverty stricken area in comparison to being born in Bramhall your life chances are already diminished regardless. Your schooling will be worse, your health will be worse, your diet will be worse. You can aspire and work as hard as you can and still never get the chances of a person who happened to grow up in a place where wealth is accrued easier. There are exceptions of course but not what a meritocracy should produce.

As for poor how can it possibly be right that in the last 12 months we have had nearly 1 million families of which a third were in work having to use a foodbank. That is appaling in the 6th richest country in the world. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury said he has seen poverty worse in the UK that in the Congo. How is that right?

So how would you help the 300,000 families who work hard but have to use foodbanks to survive escape the poverty they are in. I doubt you preaching meritocracy to them is going to work as they already aspire and work hard but have not had the life chances a true meritocratic society should offer them.

You talk some absolute drivel
I was born in Wythenshawe FFS doesn't come much more run down than that I own two Businesses and Employ 40 people when my wife became disabled I sold a much bigger business so I could spend more time at home. So how much opportunity do people need?

And have you got statistics stating how many of those people using food banks smoke or own a pet or a car or drink alcohol? Using a foodbank may just be a means to stretch their money for other reasons. Some people make bad choices why should people who make better choices in life pay for their mistakes?

Your generation had a much better chance to succeed than people right now. How many people bought their council house in wythenshawe for peanuts and made 60 grand profit?

No chance of getting on the ladder for me at present unless I want to spend the best year's of my life not living it and just saving every penny.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Blimey whu blu, how do you see yourself in relation to these other humans? Obviously not as your equal.

How dare people make bad choices or have bad luck.