Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Say what you want about Galloway but isn't it funny that the Rochdale result is apparently an "attack on democracy" rather than the "will of the people"? Sunak might as well have come out to that lectern dressed as a hot dog and proclaimed "we're all trying to find out who did this" for all that speech was worth.
The grown ups are back in charge baby and you'll never guess who they hate.
Needs more context. The Labour position, the last I heard, was that the rise was being driven by poor management of the NHS so pretty cnuty if people are clipping to shit stir, eh
I'm sure Ukraine will be delighted to see two staunch advocates of peace united to push for an end to the war
What context do you think alters the framing that despite claiming they're tough on benefits, the Tories are clearly not being tough enough for Kendall?
So investment in support for getting young people into work, while saying that they won't be supporting people living on benefits as a lifestyle choice. Who is unhappy with this again?
Homelessness as a lifestyle choice - appalling and proof Braverman is a vindictive individual who shouldn't be running a raffle, nevermind a department of government
Living on benefits as a lifestyle choice - the grown ups are back in charge, thank goodness someone is saying it. Vote for them as soon as possible.
She is so close to stumbling on the truth.
The data shows a public health crisis, with wide disparity between the richest and poorest areas of the country (and disparities within areas too). So we need a massive public health campaign, including better access to healthcare, an increase to the minimum wage, taxing the poorest less, and measures like making healthy food cheap and plentiful and accessible.
Some people are on benefits as a lifestyle choice. Most people don't want their money going to those people but want people who need it to be helped.
People don't choose to be homeless, though when they are they sometimes choose to reject help because of various complexities.
Why don't you quit your job and live on benefits? You obviously think it's piss easy to do and these people are living it up.
Are you 12?
For asking why you haven't done something you clearly consider easy to do and an easy way of living without working?
What a fecking communist.
Aren't there studies that show we lose way less money to benefit cheats than tax evasion? Benefit cheats on the whole is a bit of a myth, but people lap it up
I think you meant the other way around, and I agree it's not as big an issue as the media portays, though definitely happens. Close the loopholes, tax the rich, fund mental health services and the NHS, help people into work, challenge people who are able but choosing not to. That's fair, no?
Yeah that is what I meant. Corrected. And yeah I agree.
It's just such a childish question with ridiculous assumptions I'm almost stunlocked by it
Progressive politics in 2024 - We need to fund mental health services with the money we can’t afford because the tories destroyed the country. We need to challenge people on benefits without cutting benefits.
Last edited:
Sorry, I'll avoid 'ridiculous assumptions'. Now, back to why a would be government minister thinks the Tories aren't 'tough enough on benefits' because of all those living on them as a lifestyle choice.
The trouble with forcing these people who 'choose not to work' into jobs is that they'll end up not working while employed, being shit at whatever job they are assigned to next to competant people and do more harm than good wherever they go. Just let them have their £85 quid a week and let them stay out of the way of working people if that's what they want.
Although, I suppose it's worth looking at the maths in these situations too. There will be competant people who are unemployed, but for whom taking a job would see them losing money, once they are taken off housing allowances and have to pay for daytime childcare, which often costs more per hour than you can make at work. The government have created a system whereby it'd be stupid to come off benefits and into work.
Kendall speed running the 2015 era
She said that the Tories 'claim to be tough'
The elephant in the room is an ageing population, living longer, taking up more NHS resources, who vote for governments which strangle the young people who are not being born in large enough numbers to fund everything. Something's got to give. The system is destined to break.
My goodness, how dare they?
Most of them vote tory. What can I tell you? They're inherently selfish people
Co-signMost of them vote tory. What can I tell you? They're inherently selfish people
Do you think she brought up the cost because she thinks its too low?
Would be an odd choice considering she's talking about bringing it down within the first five years of a Starmer regime.
It's an uncomfortable truth though. Not enough tax payers to cover the cost of pensioners unless we immediatley start siring lots of children or bringing in immigrant workers en masse.
That's on top of accepting that anyone under 40 might never be able to retire.
Or she thinks it's too high and action needs to be taken that is more than just acting tough
You're whataboutisms are we transparent as hasbara spiel. Ukraine is not undergoing a Labour approved genocide.
Edit: Galloway and Corbyn will not abandon Ukraine if that's what you meant.
So the Tories aren't tough enough. As I said.
Their version of tough sees too many people for Kendall in receipt of benefits, therefore they're not being tough enough.
Most of them vote tory. What can I tell you? They're inherently selfish people
Yes, living that long does make you selfish, or if you prefer 'conservative', wanting to keep more of what they earn, unfortunately it can happen to the best of them.
The biggest problem of course is that people are out living the expectations of former generations, government planning etc. Of course raising the age for retirement might help and push up the death rate.
Don't know what the figures are today, but at one time and in certain occupations very few people tended to live up to ten years beyond their retirement. At one time even in the 50's and early 60's it was less than 50% made it beyond 3-4 years after retirement, especially in manual-labour type occupations, miners, heavy manufacturing, construction/outdoor repair working, etc. then when they did make it to the state pension it was a mere pittance (still is relatively speaking). So shortage of money, age and illness, cold houses and poor food also took its toll.
However, that's all change now the 'boomers' are living the dream their forefathers had, early retirement, lots a money, world cruises and new cars, etc. every few years.
Suppose you have to ask yourself the question can the state afford to let people live so long... especially when they may tend to vote Tory.... hold on, maybe that's why the Tory Party is seen as the natural Party of government... they live longer!!
Last edited:
He was booed at every corner in Rochdale, why would they vote for someone who was complicit with his leader in staying silent or worse supporting the massacres in Gaza.