Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:25:19 GMT 1
And just to be clear, whilst some parties seem to still be using this as a "we would do this, power to the people" type flagpole, exclusivity was ALREADY stopped and backed by the recent amendments to Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act:- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/26/section/153/enactedI wonder back in the day what percentage of workers were employed on " what would now be classed as zero hours contracts but at the time were simply called casual labour". As a kid in the 70's I remember signs saying, "Welders/Labourers wanted, meet here @ 7:30am", my grandma spoke to me of the 40's and 50's of queuing up at the factory gates whilst the bosses counted in the number of 'menders' they needed that day, and the rest were sent on their way. We employ drivers on zero hours contracts rather than a casual basis. Sometimes we have deliveries, sometimes we don't. In the past they were casual - paid the same and treated the same. I made them employees so they shared in our ethos and felt "part of it" And they get some other benefits like death in service. They keep their freedom and flexibility yet according to Millibland we are evil incarnate for that. Exactly. They also get rights to paid annual leave. They're definitely a better answer to what was the 1970's and earlier demand for casual flexible workers who weren't a drain on small business when there was no work. Unfortunately they seem to have become demonised into some political pawn over the last 12-18 months or so. Yes, they're more exploitable than a 'regular' employment contract, but they certainly give more power to the worker than a casual arrangement, and there's a NEED for them in certain sectors, unless we'd rather see businesses go to the wall and there be no casual/intermittent work available at all and have those 2-3% of working people back on benefits, as an increased tax burden on those of us fortunate enough to be on either 'regular' or fixed term employment contracts, and with a shrunken economic outlook. And lets face it, if you're not a good employer and not seen as acting in a 'fair and reasonable' manner, then they'd simply go elsewhere...there's plenty of driving jobs out there.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,391
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 3, 2015 11:26:22 GMT 1
You're right. I often forget that the Lib Dem's are part of it too at times. The raising of the personal allowance has benefited the lower paid by a reasonable amount and as far as I remember, the Lib Dems were the ones who championed this. It's gone up from £6,475 in 2010 to £10,600 this year, meaning no tax is paid on the first £883 a month now, rather than the 2010 amount of £539. Making minimum wage and all basic rate tax payers £825 a year better off than under Labour taxation. Just a shame the Lib Dems had to trade off putting uni fees to 9k a year to help out the worse off in society. I agree, it is a shame. It's a crap system because it fails low income graduates who can no longer afford to retrain in something that employers will find useful. Labour are offering to reduce the cap in fees - but in reality the only ones who will benefit from that are the Oxbridge elites, and even then only the very top earners.
|
|
|
Post by EastCoastTerrier on Apr 3, 2015 11:28:00 GMT 1
No. Is that where these uni graduates mentioned are living with their parents? I only ask because some peoples arguements are based on the need for affordable housing close to big cities where the majority of higher paid jobs are. Btw - I'm pretty neutral in terms of experience of this arguement as my first house was oversees.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,391
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 3, 2015 11:31:35 GMT 1
It would be interesting to see people ages on here compared to their views. I would guess the majority of people who see that the government need to do more to help housing prices and getting on to the property market and at the younger end, and those who feel people are just being lazy and its doable if they work hard are pushing on a bit. Was it a quote from Churchill that went something like- ' If you aren't voting Labour by the time you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't voting Tory by the time you're 40, then you have no brain.' When I was 20, Tony Blair was PM. Not the most compassionate of governments... I'm not 40 yet, so I still have time .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:33:40 GMT 1
Wow. I'm astonished. Largely because the government has a duty to it's people to provide it's population with a safe living environment. And this attitude is what's gone wrong with our society today. A certain element of society think the country owes them a living just for living here. Nobody has a "duty" to pay for other people to sit on their arse with no intention of ever working and provide them a place to live for free, just because they're a UK resident. For a society to work, it needs people to pull their weight not leech from the rest. Wow, I'm astonished.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,391
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 3, 2015 11:34:59 GMT 1
So, what you're saying is we should have a referendum on whether to change to a voting system that allows people to register 2nd and 3rd preferences? Yup. Was shouted down in the last parliament and will be for my lifetime I bet. All the same, vested interests trumps the right thing to do. What do you mean by "shouted down"? We had that referendum in 2011!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:36:57 GMT 1
Just a shame the Lib Dems had to trade off putting uni fees to 9k a year to help out the worse off in society. I agree, it is a shame. It's a crap system because it fails low income graduates who can no longer afford to retrain in something that employers will find useful. Labour are offering to reduce the cap in fees - but in reality the only ones who will benefit from that are the Oxbridge elites, and even then only the very top earners. In a way I can understand the viewpoint of raising fees to sort the wheat our from the chaff. Yet it seems like the system won't work. Figures suggest many won't pay back the student loans they receive because it will take them a while to earn the £21k + they need to before paying it back. Really we should review the way Germany manages to use uni education, somewhere that charges no fees whatsoever. Labour, who of course created fees, seem to be offering the reduction as a way of pandering to younger voters rather than arguing for a full review should they get into power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:41:18 GMT 1
Wow. I'm astonished. Largely because the government has a duty to it's people to provide it's population with a safe living environment. And this attitude is what's gone wrong with our society today. A certain element of society think the country owes them a living just for living here. Nobody has a "duty" to pay for other people to sit on their arse with no intention of ever working and provide them a place to live for free, just because they're a UK resident. For a society to work, it needs people to pull their weight not leech from the rest. Wow, I'm astonished. Ah the manipulation of what I said. You fail to quote this... "I believe in a world where the government helps out those who need help and gives them the tools to succeed. The problem is there will always be a small minority who exploit the system and far too many on here are focusing on those who do so. They do it at the bottom of society, the so called work shy scroungers and I like a few on here know of a few, all the way to the top with the tax avoiders, MPs fiddling expenses etc. Read more: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/96100/town-tory?page=19&scrollTo=1711158#ixzz3WF2KvDDzBut then I put it to you Marcus, do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:45:11 GMT 1
I agree. Did you read my post properly? I'm trying to dispel the myth that the Tories don't do anything for the less well off. They take far les tax from the poorest than Labour did. Except that the Tories (like Labour) wanted to keep the income tax threshold at £6475, just like Labour. And they wanted to reduce the top tax rate to 40% (just like Labour). Both those policies were from their coalition partners. What I will say though is that out of Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP, Labour are the only ones who haven't yet offered any further tax cuts for lower earners. Labour are also promising that if elected, they'll ensure that minimum wage is £8/hr by 2020 - neglecting to mention that if the coalition's policy of raising it in line with inflation is continued (by whoever gets elected in May) it will almost certainly be higher than that anyway! Much like the "defecit" and "national debt" confusion, Labour rely on people to be too stupid to see through the smoke screen. A rise from £6.70 to £8.00 over 5 years, is an average increase of 3.8% a year, hardly unusual considering it has already increased by 3.1% a year since the current government got in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:50:31 GMT 1
Was it a quote from Churchill that went something like- ' If you aren't voting Labour by the time you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't voting Tory by the time you're 40, then you have no brain.' When I was 20, Tony Blair was PM. Not the most compassionate of governments... I'm not 40 yet, so I still have time . I was 24 when I helped vote Blair into power. We all make mistakes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:50:34 GMT 1
Wow. I'm astonished. Largely because the government has a duty to it's people to provide it's population with a safe living environment. We're going to a situation similar to America where renting is the only way many who work can generally afford to live unless they get help from families to buy homes or are part of a professional couple and both on a good wage. We have virtually no rent control measures meaning that people can exploit those that have to rent. Social Housing that is built that can be rented out at a fair rate creating profit for councils to reinvest is much better than no social housing leading to a crisis like no other and the south east of england is seeing that. The government under Thatcher sold off far too many council houses without ever replacing them and since then our population has increased a lot. I've been out of uni 2 years and know of only a few people who aren't still living at home, all bar one renting. Those I know who have moved to London are paying nigh on a grand a month for A BEDROOM. Not an entire flat , a bedroom. People will say well why don't the live in Yorkshire where it's affordable, well the jobs aren't here. People go where the jobs are, demand increases, prices rise. The next government has to encourage companies to spread jobs around the UK and get building social housing as well as incentivising the creation of affordable housing to buy. It's up to the government to incentivise the building of affordable housing, a criticism that can be made of Blair's government and this coalition one. Brown did try in his short tenure but the sub-prime mortgage crash stopped that. What's become evident on this thread is an extremely right wing view that everyone in this country who believes in a fair society somehow thinks we're entitled to it. It's quite embarrassing. I believe in a world where the government helps out those who need help and gives them the tools to succeed. The problem is there will always be a small minority who exploit the system and far too many on here are focusing on those who do so. They do it at the bottom of society, the so called work shy scroungers and I like a few on here know of a few, all the way to the top with the tax avoiders, MPs fiddling expenses etc. Peoples expectations have changed so much and its the 'entitlement attitude' that drives us so called 'right wingers' mad. I work half the week in a place full of uni graduates in their 20s and most don;'t live at home but rent or have recently bought. None of them are on anything like a fortune but what they consider acceptable as a first home is vastly different from the first place I bought, that for sure. So are the cars they drive and of course i didn't expect an expensive mobile phone or satellite tv or a fortnight abroad every year with a few city breaks thrown in when i first got on the property ladder ( interest rates were 15% by the way!! ) I cut my cloth as people seemed to do back then, did without stuff I couldn't afford and i didn't feel 'entitled' to anything or have the feeling the tax payer has a duty to provide me with a very nice life thankyou, like you seem to. My son barely earns more than the minimum wage but has just got on the property ladder and still has enough to run a cheap car. He cuts his cloth when it comes to all the luxuries. It can be done. If your ex uni mates are still living at home its because they choose to and maybe they don't want to give up the luxuries they are used to. Am I right in thinking your son had help from your family in acquiring his property?! COuld he have afforded this house with a mortgage without said help? Could my friends who are on 6.50-7.50 an hour who need to run a car for their jobs buy a house on their own in an area where there is value in resale and get a mortgage that is affordable? Perhaps my friends who still live at home are doing it to save money to buy their own house. Because it's a damn sight more sensible and affordable than throwing money away renting. Not the luxuries that you mention. As for my only friend who has bought a house, it was with his Mrs. A professional couple who can afford to run cars, mortgage repayments and they also had help from their families. And as for those friends living in London. They will never be able to afford a house down there if the current situation carries on. £900/950 a month (without bills) to live in a double room fairly central to London. It's no way of living.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:53:24 GMT 1
And this attitude is what's gone wrong with our society today. A certain element of society think the country owes them a living just for living here. Nobody has a "duty" to pay for other people to sit on their arse with no intention of ever working and provide them a place to live for free, just because they're a UK resident. For a society to work, it needs people to pull their weight not leech from the rest. Wow, I'm astonished. Ah the manipulation of what I said. You fail to quote this... "I believe in a world where the government helps out those who need help and gives them the tools to succeed. The problem is there will always be a small minority who exploit the system and far too many on here are focusing on those who do so. They do it at the bottom of society, the so called work shy scroungers and I like a few on here know of a few, all the way to the top with the tax avoiders, MPs fiddling expenses etc. Read more: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/96100/town-tory?page=19&scrollTo=1711158#ixzz3WF2KvDDzBut then I put it to you Marcus, do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! I quoted you word for word, hardly manipulation. I believe that people who can work, should put something back into society for their free hand outs. Like the earlier suggestion of Community work, which made you spit your tea out.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,391
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 3, 2015 11:53:42 GMT 1
Edited for accuracy. Tory policy on raising the income tax threshold was the same as Labour's - I.e. keep it at £124.52 per week. Raising the threshold was a concession the Tories made to their coalition partners. If anybody is "keeping the working class down" though it's Labour. Welfare dependency must be a horrible situation to be in. Can't afford to work because you'd be worse off if you did, so you stay unemployed and become more and more unemployable. Possibly, but its the Tories Coalition's rescuing of the economy from the mess they inherited that has made it possible. Edited for accuracy. We have a Tory chancellor, but a Lib Dem in charge of HMRC and I wonder how aggressively a Tory would have gone after tax avoidance. I suspect as well that the tax cut for low earners enabling them to spend more probably helped turn around the economy. I'm not saying that the Tories don't deserve any credit for turning the economy around, that would be as silly as saying the Lib Dems don't deserve any credit for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:59:57 GMT 1
Ah the manipulation of what I said. You fail to quote this... "I believe in a world where the government helps out those who need help and gives them the tools to succeed. The problem is there will always be a small minority who exploit the system and far too many on here are focusing on those who do so. They do it at the bottom of society, the so called work shy scroungers and I like a few on here know of a few, all the way to the top with the tax avoiders, MPs fiddling expenses etc. Read more: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/96100/town-tory?page=19&scrollTo=1711158#ixzz3WF2KvDDzBut then I put it to you Marcus, do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! I quoted you word for word, hardly manipulation. I believe that people who can work, should put something back into society for their free hand outs. Like the earlier suggestion of Community work, which made you spit your tea out. Answer the question. do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 12:09:27 GMT 1
I quoted you word for word, hardly manipulation. I believe that people who can work, should put something back into society for their free hand outs. Like the earlier suggestion of Community work, which made you spit your tea out. Answer the question. do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No. It's not a simple yes or no question, so you'll have to settle for my far more comprehensive answer Mr Milliband. The social state should be a safety net, not a way of life for the feckless and lazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 12:14:37 GMT 1
Answer the question. do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No. It's not a simple yes or no question, so you'll have to settle for my far more comprehensive answer Mr Milliband. The social state should be a safety net, not a way of life for the feckless and lazy. Answer the question. It's not hard! Do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 3, 2015 12:16:00 GMT 1
Peoples expectations have changed so much and its the 'entitlement attitude' that drives us so called 'right wingers' mad. I work half the week in a place full of uni graduates in their 20s and most don;'t live at home but rent or have recently bought. None of them are on anything like a fortune but what they consider acceptable as a first home is vastly different from the first place I bought, that for sure. So are the cars they drive and of course i didn't expect an expensive mobile phone or satellite tv or a fortnight abroad every year with a few city breaks thrown in when i first got on the property ladder ( interest rates were 15% by the way!! ) I cut my cloth as people seemed to do back then, did without stuff I couldn't afford and i didn't feel 'entitled' to anything or have the feeling the tax payer has a duty to provide me with a very nice life thankyou, like you seem to. My son barely earns more than the minimum wage but has just got on the property ladder and still has enough to run a cheap car. He cuts his cloth when it comes to all the luxuries. It can be done. If your ex uni mates are still living at home its because they choose to and maybe they don't want to give up the luxuries they are used to. Am I right in thinking your son had help from your family in acquiring his property?! COuld he have afforded this house with a mortgage without said help? Could my friends who are on 6.50-7.50 an hour who need to run a car for their jobs buy a house on their own in an area where there is value in resale and get a mortgage that is affordable? Perhaps my friends who still live at home are doing it to save money to buy their own house. Because it's a damn sight more sensible and affordable than throwing money away renting. Not the luxuries that you mention. As for my only friend who has bought a house, it was with his Mrs. A professional couple who can afford to run cars, mortgage repayments and they also had help from their families. And as for those friends living in London. They will never be able to afford a house down there if the current situation carries on. £900/950 a month (without bills) to live in a double room fairly central to London. It's no way of living. Getting help from family is nothing new. Thats been going on forever. He was only 21 when he had his offer accepted and had only been working a year and a half, so the help he got meant he could buy without spending another year or two saving up. Ive said before, I feel sorry for any youngster whos been through higher education in something that doesn;'t have enough jobs to satisfy demand. Im afraid your victims of New Labours policy of getting as any people into higher education as possible, regardless of need. However can they buy a decent flat in a decent area on that amount- yes, my son proves you can though it involves luck in finding the right place and sacrifice when it comes to fancy phones, holidays, clothes, lagers, tv stations etc etc. Not every youngster is prepared to make those sacrifices. When my parents got married in the early 60s it was very common for newly weds to live with parents for years whilst they saved for a home and I certainly doubt it was common for singles to move out and buy their own place in their 20s. And those people wouldn't have had anything like the expensive luxuries todays generation expects. So its not like things now are somehow worse than in the past IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 12:24:08 GMT 1
Am I right in thinking your son had help from your family in acquiring his property?! COuld he have afforded this house with a mortgage without said help? Could my friends who are on 6.50-7.50 an hour who need to run a car for their jobs buy a house on their own in an area where there is value in resale and get a mortgage that is affordable? Perhaps my friends who still live at home are doing it to save money to buy their own house. Because it's a damn sight more sensible and affordable than throwing money away renting. Not the luxuries that you mention. As for my only friend who has bought a house, it was with his Mrs. A professional couple who can afford to run cars, mortgage repayments and they also had help from their families. And as for those friends living in London. They will never be able to afford a house down there if the current situation carries on. £900/950 a month (without bills) to live in a double room fairly central to London. It's no way of living. Getting help from family is nothing new. Thats been going on forever. He was only 21 when he had his offer accepted and had only been working a year and a half, so the help he got meant he could buy without spending another year or two saving up. Ive said before, I feel sorry for any youngster whos been through higher education in something that doesn;'t have enough jobs to satisfy demand. Im afraid your victims of New Labours policy of getting as any people into higher education as possible, regardless of need. However can they buy a decent flat in a decent area on that amount- yes, my son proves you can though it involves luck in finding the right place and sacrifice when it comes to fancy phones, holidays, clothes, lagers, tv stations etc etc. Not every youngster is prepared to make those sacrifices. When my parents got married in the early 60s it was very common for newly weds to live with parents for years whilst they saved for a home and I certainly doubt it was common for singles to move out and buy their own place in their 20s. And those people wouldn't have had anything like the expensive luxuries todays generation expects. So its not like things now are somehow worse than in the past IMO. So without family help your son could not have afforded his house?
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,391
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 3, 2015 12:33:09 GMT 1
Am I right in thinking your son had help from your family in acquiring his property?! COuld he have afforded this house with a mortgage without said help? Could my friends who are on 6.50-7.50 an hour who need to run a car for their jobs buy a house on their own in an area where there is value in resale and get a mortgage that is affordable? Perhaps my friends who still live at home are doing it to save money to buy their own house. Because it's a damn sight more sensible and affordable than throwing money away renting. Not the luxuries that you mention. As for my only friend who has bought a house, it was with his Mrs. A professional couple who can afford to run cars, mortgage repayments and they also had help from their families. And as for those friends living in London. They will never be able to afford a house down there if the current situation carries on. £900/950 a month (without bills) to live in a double room fairly central to London. It's no way of living. Getting help from family is nothing new. Thats been going on forever. He was only 21 when he had his offer accepted and had only been working a year and a half, so the help he got meant he could buy without spending another year or two saving up. Ive said before, I feel sorry for any youngster whos been through higher education in something that doesn;'t have enough jobs to satisfy demand. Im afraid your victims of New Labours policy of getting as any people into higher education as possible, regardless of need. However can they buy a decent flat in a decent area on that amount- yes, my son proves you can though it involves luck in finding the right place and sacrifice when it comes to fancy phones, holidays, clothes, lagers, tv stations etc etc. Not every youngster is prepared to make those sacrifices. When my parents got married in the early 60s it was very common for newly weds to live with parents for years whilst they saved for a home and I certainly doubt it was common for singles to move out and buy their own place in their 20s. And those people wouldn't have had anything like the expensive luxuries todays generation expects. So its not like things now are somehow worse than in the past IMO. Family help may be nothing new, but it's not something that everybody has access to. If you and your family had not helped your son, do you think he would have been able to afford to live where he does?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 12:33:45 GMT 1
It's not a simple yes or no question, so you'll have to settle for my far more comprehensive answer Mr Milliband. The social state should be a safety net, not a way of life for the feckless and lazy. Answer the question. It's not hard!
Do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No. The day I take notice of a socialist dictator, Hell will freeze over. I've already explained my viewpoint to you in detail, using words you should be able to understand.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,391
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 3, 2015 12:40:09 GMT 1
Answer the question. It's not hard!
Do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No. The day I take notice of a socialist dictator, Hell will freeze over. I've already explained my viewpoint to you in detail, using words you should be able to understand. I don't know who t26 is, but I am willing to bet that he's not a dictator (socialist or otherwise). He is your opponent in a debate and he has asked you a question. From where I am sat (and presumably from where t26 is sat), your viewpoint looks to contradict itself. Some clarification would be useful. I accept that you may wish to elaborate rather than give a simple one word answer, in which case, "yes because...." or "no because...." would be useful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 12:40:15 GMT 1
The problem is people want to have everything they see NOW. They don't have the patience, discipline and work ethic to work extra hours or a second job to save and achieve something.
Instead they have the attitude that society owes them a house, car, food cell phone and a TV.
Safety nets should provide the minimum standard of living not the same standard that people working for themselves have. I have always felt this way and I am 40 now. Never taken any government benefits. The reason I feel this way is because benefits cost money and the government takes that from someone who is working to give to someone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 12:41:30 GMT 1
Answer the question. It's not hard!
Do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No. The day I take notice of a socialist dictator, Hell will freeze over. I've already explained my viewpoint to you in detail, using words you should be able to understand. Trying to insult my intelligence and make me bite by any chance? You haven't answer the question... and for one last time. Do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No. Now please stop trying to do a Michael Howard and give an answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 12:50:23 GMT 1
The day I take notice of a socialist dictator, Hell will freeze over. I've already explained my viewpoint to you in detail, using words you should be able to understand. Trying to insult my intelligence and make me bite by any chance? You haven't answer the question... and for one last time. Do you believe that the government shouldn't provide a safe living environment for it's population?! Yes or No. Now please stop trying to do a Michael Howard and give an answer. To be fair you have not defined what a "safe living environment " is so it is an unfair question
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 3, 2015 13:04:46 GMT 1
Marcus has already answered it.
should the government provide a safety net ( safe living environment) for people who need it- yes, but not one thats so attractive it removes the incentive to work. Should it be there for people who choose to abuse it as a life option- no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 13:07:43 GMT 1
The day I take notice of a socialist dictator, Hell will freeze over. I've already explained my viewpoint to you in detail, using words you should be able to understand. I don't know who t26 is, but I am willing to bet that he's not a dictator (socialist or otherwise). He is your opponent in a debate and he has asked you a question. From where I am sat (and presumably from where t26 is sat), your viewpoint looks to contradict itself. Some clarification would be useful. I accept that you may wish to elaborate rather than give a simple one word answer, in which case, "yes because...." or "no because...." would be useful. It's not a yes or no question because he's not qualified the question properly. My answers explaining my viewpoint to his non qualified question have been given twice, but unfortunately are not the result he wants from his loaded question. I don't take notice of people who try to dicate things from me, no matter how many times a "yes" or "no" answer is demanded. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 13:09:41 GMT 1
Roll on some football!
|
|
sweccy
Juvenile Terrier
Posts: 16
|
Post by sweccy on Apr 3, 2015 13:29:27 GMT 1
I think the club should respond to this quickly and officially. I can't believe that they have willingly or accidentally allied themselves to any political party so they need to explain. If it's been done willingly then it's a very very big gaffe.
|
|
ligament
Darren Bullock Terrier
[M0:10] those were the days........
Posts: 874
|
Post by ligament on Apr 3, 2015 14:08:57 GMT 1
to simplify the op as we are complying withh ffp i would say yes had we overspent like l**ds ,forest and blackburn then we would be labour .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 14:58:49 GMT 1
I don't know who t26 is, but I am willing to bet that he's not a dictator (socialist or otherwise). He is your opponent in a debate and he has asked you a question. From where I am sat (and presumably from where t26 is sat), your viewpoint looks to contradict itself. Some clarification would be useful. I accept that you may wish to elaborate rather than give a simple one word answer, in which case, "yes because...." or "no because...." would be useful. It's not a yes or no question because he's not qualified the question properly. My answers explaining my viewpoint to his non qualified question have been given twice, but unfortunately are not the result he wants from his loaded question. I don't take notice of people who try to dicate things from me, no matter how many times a "yes" or "no" answer is demanded. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_questionIt is a yes or no answer. You can the quantify why you said yes or no. "The social state should be a safety net, not a way of life for the feckless and lazy." is not an answer. Instead you have chosen the path of thinly veiled insults - Why? Because if you answer my question you will contradict your argument, because perhaps you're not winning the deabte. I'm not trying to dictate anything, just asking question that you refuse to answer. Now my guess is that you agree with me that the government should provide a safe living environment for it's population. Social housing is the way of doing that. My other guess is that we will differ on the way of providing said safe living environment. Reasoned debate requires you to back up your argument, one thing you've failed to do on this thread. Instead you say you wont take notice of me because I'm trying to get you to answer a question, childish. You're not the only one not to answer my questions. Slapps refused to answer mine and Feet of Fire's questioning over whether his son would be able to afford his house without family help. Slapps said "My son barely earns more than the minimum wage but has just got on the property ladder and still has enough to run a cheap car. He cuts his cloth when it comes to all the luxuries. It can be done. If your ex uni mates are still living at home its because they choose to and maybe they don't want to give up the luxuries they are used to." Yet he probably has refuses to answer the question because his son would contradict his argument of those in there early 20's living at home for the luxuries, when without family help his son would still be at home saving for a house. Now myself and Feet of Fire have a different political viewpoint but we chose to express it through reasoned debate rather than slagging off others, arguing down facts and stats and toeing one party's line. Open yourself up to that kind of debate because it's a lot more constructive.
|
|