The Post General Election Thread

[Blue Maverick]

I'm not going to quote Damocles' post but worsleyweb makes valid points as does Damocles. For every policy one can always find someone who genuinely needs the said benefit through no fault of their own.

Actually my main point is that for every 10 policy ones there are 50 genuine ones and the amount of attention that the very slight number get is more about ideology than it is about finances or anything.

You watch, the stories will flood in. But there does need to be a panel to grant discretionary payments for unique circumstances where people would face hardship. I work in social housing and our allocations teams get lots of requests for transfers because their increasing families are outgrowing the perfectly adequate houses they rent. Then it's the fault of the landlord or the government that they have created a family too big for the house and not planned as a homeowner would and they demand to be moved to bigger properties. I can't afford to have 4 kids, my house or income isn't big enough so I don't. Having large families should not be a career. Regarding Child Benefit I would support this being paid up to two children, although this would not be immediate. It would come in for the third child born a year hence so everyone knows what they are getting. It would be unfair to bring this in straight away.

This argument is basically "I'm clever enough to not do this so other people should be as clever as me", the error of which I've pointed out earlier. Some people aren't as organised as this or circumstances present themselves where they have children that they don't want and feel the societal pressure not to give up. Especially if they already have children, giving up a child for adoption is essentially telling every social worker or care team that you're engaged with that you do not feel you can look after your child.

It's not rocket science you look at money you have if you can afford it, I'd love to have another child however my job and that of my wife dictate it cannot happen, the major factor is money and also the burden on our supportive families. If you haven't got the IQ to work it out frankly you shouldn't having kids anyway.

 

[Damocles]

It's not rocket science you look at money you have if you can afford it, I'd love to have another child however my job and that of my wife dictate it cannot happen, the major factor is money and also the burden on our supportive families. If you haven't got the IQ to work it out frankly you shouldn't having kids anyway.

So you think poor planning or making a mistake is the same thing as a lack of intelligence?

See this is where I start to enjoy these types of debates because you do get to see the stripped down arguments and they expose their contempt. Your problem is that you think you are better than people because you have a bit of money and they don't. therefore they must be thick and/or lazy.

I can afford to have more kids and in fact the missus is currently pregnant. Obviously this means that I am better and smarter than you are, which means you should listen to my opinion and presume it correct.

 

[1961_vintage]

So what do people think won it for the Tories?

When your "opposition" leadership amounts to nothing more threatening than a racist, pompous buffoon, an insipid, spineless, gormless twat and a politically diaphanous non-entity - and where the only binding qualities that connect each of their parties are a collection of short-term opportunistic, incoherent policies - you have something of a hollow "victory" no?

Hopefully CMD will not be so arrogant as to not be demanding to know why in such circumstances he was only able to realise such a relatively poor mandate from the electorate.

Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Scottyboi]

It's not rocket science you look at money you have if you can afford it, I'd love to have another child however my job and that of my wife dictate it cannot happen, the major factor is money and also the burden on our supportive families. If you haven't got the IQ to work it out frankly you shouldn't having kids anyway.

So you think poor planning or making a mistake is the same thing as a lack of intelligence?

See this is where I start to enjoy these types of debates because you do get to see the stripped down arguments and they expose their contempt. Your problem is that you think you are better than people because you have a bit of money and they don't. therefore they must be thick and/or lazy.

I can afford to have more kids and in fact the missus is currently pregnant. Obviously this means that I am better and smarter than you are, which means you should listen to my opinion and presume it correct.

Look at my story a couple of pages back Damocles, my mum must of had a low IQ and been a shit person to have 5 of us!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

So what do people think won it for the Tories?

When your "opposition" leadership amounts to nothing more threatening than a racist, pompous buffoon, an insipid, spineless, gormless twat and a politically diaphanous non-entity - and where the only binding qualities that connect each of their parties are a collection of short-term opportunistic, incoherent policies - you have something of a hollow "victory" no?

Hopefully CMD will not be so arrogant as to not be demanding to know why in such circumstances he was only able to realise such a relatively poor mandate from the electorate.

Somehow I doubt it.

'Diaphanous' is a new one on me '61. Like it. Noted and stored. Thanks for that :-)

 

[1961_vintage]

So what do people think won it for the Tories?

When your "opposition" leadership amounts to nothing more threatening than a racist, pompous buffoon, an insipid, spineless, gormless twat and a politically diaphanous non-entity - and where the only binding qualities that connect each of their parties are a collection of short-term opportunistic, incoherent policies - you have something of a hollow "victory" no?

Hopefully CMD will not be so arrogant as to not be demanding to know why in such circumstances he was only able to realise such a relatively poor mandate from the electorate.

Somehow I doubt it.

'Diaphanous' is a new one on me '61. Like it. Noted and stored. Thanks for that :-)

A pleasure my friend - I look forward to it making an appearance in one of your future contributions!

 

[The perfect fumble]

So negative was the Tory campaign based on the "chaos" of a Labour/SNP cabal, which they believed to be the most likely outcome, that they appear as shocked at the result as Labour is.

Francis Maude on Question Time looked like a man who'd won the lottery without buying a ticket.

The problem is despite all this they still won so the point you should be making is just how bad and unpalatable was the LABOUR alternative?
Also if the Tories were just negative it should have been a piece of piss for labour to beat this unpopular bunch of right wing toffs who had held power for the last five years shafting all the electorate, funny people voters though despite all the left wing logic on display on Bluemoon the labour campaign made the failed campaigns of Michael foot and Gordon Brown look like good grounded popular politicians

Calm down, calm down.

You can win elections with a negative campaign, the Tories just have.

You might well see it as the Tories skillfuly exposing the weaknesses in Labour, fine, and the electorate seems to have agreed with them, but the Conservatives were not predicting a Tory majority result any more than Labour were predicting a collapse, those exit polls were as unexpected at Tory HQ as at Labour HQ, hence Maude looking dazed and confused.

 

[The perfect fumble]

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Damocles, although I disagree with it your long post is very eloquent & cleverly argued.

But don't you think that if you translated the time and thought you put into posting on a football forum into doing more work in or on your business, you could earn more money which you could then donate to all the poor people using food banks etc and give some of them much better lives? It would surely be a better use of your time, and fit in with your political stance beautifully?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

When your "opposition" leadership amounts to nothing more threatening than a racist, pompous buffoon, an insipid, spineless, gormless twat and a politically diaphanous non-entity - and where the only binding qualities that connect each of their parties are a collection of short-term opportunistic, incoherent policies - you have something of a hollow "victory" no?

Hopefully CMD will not be so arrogant as to not be demanding to know why in such circumstances he was only able to realise such a relatively poor mandate from the electorate.

Somehow I doubt it.

'Diaphanous' is a new one on me '61. Like it. Noted and stored. Thanks for that :-)

A pleasure my friend - I look forward to it making an appearance in one of your future contributions!

Oh fear not. It'll be making an appearance soon enough ;-)