The Labour Government

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Mr Kobayashi finds person who agrees with him. Well shock horror.

You are not seriously trying to defend this horseshit are you. I mean seriously, you are OK with people on £10k per year having £300 taken off them. Seriously???

The question you should be asking is ''why is the State Pension only £10k per year''

 

[mackenzie]

I wasn't talking about the state pension. I was talking about WFA.

Thanks for confirming I was correct.

What's shameful is the attitude of an increasing amount of older people who have an entitlement beyond the means of the support that can be offered by the working age population. The safety net is only able to exist based on a social contract not entitlement.

Got to admit that it nearly kicked off when I visited my aunt and uncle last week.
Both in their 70s, both have good occ pens and savings (although he has recently returned to work part time because their savings are decreasing rapidly).
They readily admit though that they have "middle class tastes but working class pockets."
I reminded them that the welfare state was set up to deal with "need".....nothing else.
And yet I could also see their argument too....the WFA is the only thing they have ever received, after a life of working since they were 15 and they feel incensed that they have been targeted, when so many get much more from the State.

I honestly believe that the whole system needs an overhaul, because we have people who have never claimed a penny thinking "well, what was the point?"

 

[mancityvstoke]

The question you should be asking is ''why is the State Pension only £10k per year''

that gets ignored conveniently and the fact that we were once part of the "working age population" and worked for 50 years. Unlike lots of cunts who haven't worked a day in their sad lives through choice not disability.

Some right dicks on here

 

[Chippy_boy]

The question you should be asking is ''why is the State Pension only £10k per year''

Deflection.

But yes, would of course be nice if it was higher.

 

[hilts]

He sexually assaulted a prison officer, and was then promptly arrested and immediately recalled to prison.

The consequences of not releasing people as part of that scheme would be that offenders couldn't be jailed because there was no where to put them.

Or Labour could cram them all in and have no safe limits and prison officers would be at greater risk of serious violence due to the unsafe staff to prisoner ratios.

But sure take it in a silo rather than consider the trade-offs.



Have you considered driving the prison bus?

I would suggest they make a better attempt of who they put in prison and who they let out early cocker.

Some had huge hard ons the other week when people were being thrown in prison in record time.

Isn't it funny how quickly things can be done when it suits ones politics.

Been beaten up on the way home? Well I'm sorry its taken a year and it's a suspended sentence but you know the wheels of justice are slow and prisons are full.


Public disorder on the streets fuck me I've just got in office we can't have that. We will have you in clinky within a week.

Why would I drive a bus? Its you that seems to like being surrounded by criminals.

Keep em coming Mr K you're like Bart Simpson with an electrified cupcake.

 

[Postman Pep]

Got to admit that it nearly kicked off when I visited my aunt and uncle last week.
Both in their 70s, both have good occ pens and savings (although he has recently returned to work part time because their savings are decreasing rapidly).
They readily admit though that they have "middle class tastes but working class pockets."
I reminded them that the welfare state was set up to deal with "need".....nothing else.
And yet I could also see their argument too....the WFA is the only thing they have ever received, after a life of working since they were 15 and they feel incensed that they have been targeted, when so many get much more from the State.

I honestly believe that the whole system needs an overhaul, because we have people who have never claimed a penny thinking "well, what was the point?"

Disagree with the bolded bit. It was designed so that people like your Aunt and Uncle felt they had a stake in it. What better way to further undermine the concept of universalism. Coming to an NHS near you.


This contrasts with how the architects of thw welfare state saw things. Whether one was Labourist, one nation Tory, or Liberal, it represented a social wage. Universal social security provided a floor designed to catch anyone who fell on hard times. Welfare was never a luxury, despite how the unchanging propaganda of the last 45 years styles it, nor was it a product of high-minded enlightenment by clever, compassionate politicians. It was a gain extracted from capital by labour as the cost of avoiding social unrest and certain kinds of events. The fact of universalism gave other layers in society a stake in the social security system. Better off families might not have needed child benefit, for example, but it gave them extra spending power they could splash on extra clothes, treats for the children (and treats for themselves). But by extending them a stake, it was hoped opposition to their losing an entitlement would protect those who really needed it - families crippled by low wages and debt, mums financially controlled by abusive husbands, and so on. And as imperfect as it was, universalism was a bureaucratic expression of solidarity.

Residual Welfare Vs Universal Social Security

It's now abundantly clear what Tuesday night's Winter Fuel Allowance vote was about. It wasn't, according to the cynical and dishonest hous...

averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com

 

[hilts]

more of your turbo shyte.........do one.

You sound like a fucking tory

He's lying by claiming the current working age population and the govt cannot find the means to keep the wfa, he's aware that the govt doesn't collect, chase or tax those that don't even pay the correct tax.

What he is trying to do and failing badly is stick up for this current govt and argues the poster not the policy.

We all know if the Tories did this he would be calling them out.

And you are correct by doing so he is now coming across like a Tory. Its sad for him but amusing for us when a self certified smart arse digs a hole so deep he shows us he is actually pretty darn stupid.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I would suggest they make a better attempt of who they put in prison and who they let early cocker.

That isn't the job of politicians or even civil servants with a list. It's the probation service's job.

Some had huge hard ons the other week when people were being thrown in prison in record time.

Isn't it funny how quickly things can be done when it suits ones politics.

Been beaten up on the way home? Well I'm sorry its taken a year and it's a suspended sentence but you know the wheels of justice are slow and prisons are full.

Aren't you describing the system created by conservative austerity? Weird take.

Public disorder on the streets fuck me I've just got in office we can't have that. We will have you in clinky within a week.

It's like you lack consequential thought or something. The public disorder was only a glimpse of what was to come if it went unchecked. For some reason people believed they were untouchable, now they know they aren't. Inciting violent disorder and spreading falsehoods you know will lead to violence isn't a minor thing.

Why would I drive a bus? Its you that seems to like being surrounded by criminals.

Keep em coming Mr K you're like Bart Simpson with an electrified cup cake.

 

[mackenzie]

Disagree with the bolded bit. It was designed so that people like your Aunt and Uncle felt they had a stake in it. What better way to further undermine the concept of universalism. Coming to an NHS near you.


This contrasts with how the architects of thw welfare state saw things. Whether one was Labourist, one nation Tory, or Liberal, it represented a social wage. Universal social security provided a floor designed to catch anyone who fell on hard times. Welfare was never a luxury, despite how the unchanging propaganda of the last 45 years styles it, nor was it a product of high-minded enlightenment by clever, compassionate politicians. It was a gain extracted from capital by labour as the cost of avoiding social unrest and certain kinds of events. The fact of universalism gave other layers in society a stake in the social security system. Better off families might not have needed child benefit, for example, but it gave them extra spending power they could splash on extra clothes, treats for the children (and treats for themselves). But by extending them a stake, it was hoped opposition to their losing an entitlement would protect those who really needed it - families crippled by low wages and debt, mums financially controlled by abusive husbands, and so on. And as imperfect as it was, universalism was a bureaucratic expression of solidarity.

Residual Welfare Vs Universal Social Security

It's now abundantly clear what Tuesday night's Winter Fuel Allowance vote was about. It wasn't, according to the cynical and dishonest hous...

averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com

Thanks for posting that.
I'm probably being a bit thick here, in relation to that, but I was raised by my Grandparents (both born before 1920) who always told me (in their understanding) that the Welfare State was set up to make a "fairer society" that addressed issues that peaked with the deprivations of War.
Are you saying that's an incorrect perspective (although they lived through it all, obviously), or that it was originally set up for more nefarious means? Or that it has changed since?

 

[mackenzie]

That isn't the job of politicians or even civil servants with a list. It's the probation service's job.



Aren't you describing the system created by conservative austerity? Weird take.




It's like you lack consequential thought or something. The public disorder was only a glimpse of what was to come if it went unchecked. For some reason people believed they were untouchable, now they know they aren't. Inciting violent disorder and spreading falsehoods you know will lead to violence isn't a minor thing.

I think it's all too easy, with hindsight, to view those convictions as harsh.
Yet we have to look back at the context, and what was happening and building was bloody frightening for days.
There was a real risk of absolute lawlessness