Think you probably need to hunt out slightly less biased source material next time.
Might be slightly difficult considering that any source that attributes any credit to Labour for the origins of the bedroom tax could be construed as being biased against Labour...
I'm not sure it's even all people on DLA. I _think_ families with kids on DLA are exempt, but adults on DLA are only eligible for discretionary housing payments, but I've lost track of which new exemptions have been introduced. The thing that really pisses me off is that people who've had to have modifications to their homes to cater for their disability aren't automatically exempt, which is utterly ridiculous. The really galling thing is that towards the end of last year, the Lib Dem MP Andrew George put forward a private members bill that would have added these exemptions, but the Government stalled it by blocking the allocation of funding for it.
Think you probably need to hunt out slightly less biased source material next time.
Might be slightly difficult considering that any source that attributes any credit to Labour for the origins of the bedroom tax could be construed as being biased against Labour...
I said slightly less biased not utterly unbiased, although it is worth trying to get as close to the latter as you can. I don't think Lib Dem Voice could be considered unbiased on the subject of the Labour Party at any time though.
Labour wheeling out a couple of popular celebs in their latest party political broacast in Steve Coogan and David Tennant I saw tonight. There's been some odd ones this year but the Green's Boy Band spoof wins the "What the Hell am I Watching" prize for me...
Still trying to figure out what to make of Russell Brand's video for today, in which he backs Labour, the Greens and the SNP. And says voting is important to shut out the Tories and Cameron.
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
Sigh it's all a load of bollocks really lol
Did I not try to tell you that a week ago,
I also said brand is a massive ego prick who when people grow up they realise how much bollox he says,
One meeting with Milliband and he has not just decided to vote he has now all of a sudden forgot what he hated about ed balls up
Still trying to figure out what to make of Russell Brand's video for today, in which he backs Labour, the Greens and the SNP. And says voting is important to shut out the Tories and Cameron.
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
Sigh it's all a load of bollocks really lol
Did I not try to tell you that a week ago,
I also said brand is a massive ego prick who when people grow up they realise how much bollox he says,
One meeting with Milliband and he has not just decided to vote he has now all of a sudden forgot what he hated about ed balls up
So true ...and Balls is still being hidden in this election campaign as he is such a vote loser ...bit of a concern that they are afraid to show the possible next Chancellor of the Exchequer to the public at the moment .... I find this worrying
Still trying to figure out what to make of Russell Brand's video for today, in which he backs Labour, the Greens and the SNP. And says voting is important to shut out the Tories and Cameron.
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
Sigh it's all a load of bollocks really lol
Did I not try to tell you that a week ago,
I also said brand is a massive ego prick who when people grow up they realise how much bollox he says,
One meeting with Milliband and he has not just decided to vote he has now all of a sudden forgot what he hated about ed balls up
So true ...and Balls is still being hidden in this election campaign as he is such a vote loser ...bit of a concern that they are afraid to show the possible next Chancellor of the Exchequer to the public at the moment .... I find this worrying
It's a bit like if Harold Shipman was the shadow health secretary, you wouldn't find him anywhere near the cameras or on the election pamphlets but he's still there, the public just need to remember.
Still trying to figure out what to make of Russell Brand's video for today, in which he backs Labour, the Greens and the SNP. And says voting is important to shut out the Tories and Cameron.
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
Sigh it's all a load of bollocks really lol
Did I not try to tell you that a week ago,
I also said brand is a massive ego prick who when people grow up they realise how much bollox he says,
One meeting with Milliband and he has not just decided to vote he has now all of a sudden forgot what he hated about ed balls up
So true ...and Balls is still being hidden in this election campaign as he is such a vote loser ...bit of a concern that they are afraid to show the possible next Chancellor of the Exchequer to the public at the moment .... I find this worrying
He's been out and about plenty...here's a selection of coverage from the last few days alone.
I see your Eric Pickles and raise you Iain Duncan Smith - at least until this bizarre "suicide note" interview tonight. With less than three days until the polls close, the Tories STILL haven't told us where their £12bn of welfare cuts are coming from, despite Cameron, Osborne, David Gauke etc being repeatedly pressed about this.
The BBC did a brief explainer the other day of what we seem to know so far, but they're still at least $4bn short. And it's assuming that the cuts outlined in the leaked DWP document would all be happening, despite the fact the Tories denied it at the time, so the gap could be even bigger. Of particular concern to the people on this board would be:
*The proposal to limit Carers Allowance to those eligible for Universal Credit - so if you and your partner's monthly take home is more than £525 or you've got more than £6k in savings that rules you out.
Taxing disability benefits - It's not clear whether parents will be taxed on the DLA they receive on behalf of their kids, or it just affects adults, but it's likely to take a chunk out of disabled people's budgets.
*Changing contributory JSA and ESA - the piece doesn't say explicitly but it reads like they're talking about abolishing it completely. At the moment if you lose your job and you've paid enough NI contributions over the last 2 years then you're eligible for contributory JSA for up to 6 months. However, if contributory JSA is abolished, you'll no longer be eligible if you have more than 16k in savings or if your partner works fulltime. This is going to make it really difficult for family budgets at what's a stressful enough time as it is.
*Limiting child benefit to the 1st 2 kids - it's unclear whether this would only apply to new claims, and what happens with fostering or if divorcees with more than 1 kid re-marry.
What really concerns me about the Carers' Allowance and Contributory JSA/ESA proposals is that combined with recent attempts by the Tories to rebrand National Insurance contributions as "The Jobs Tax" is that it's an even more concerted effort to paint benefits as a handout to the poor and feckless rather than a return on the NI contributions we've made. If they succeed in breaking the link to contributions then it's going to be much harder to justify decent levels of benefits, when most people will think that they're never going to be eligible anyway.
How can anyone vote Labour when Ed Miliband has said he wants to make Islamophobia illegal? Literally the least intelligent promise I've ever heard and a dangerous precedent to set.
You'd think the moron might have learnt from the Rotherham scandal.
I see your Eric Pickles and raise you Iain Duncan Smith - at least until this bizarre "suicide note" interview tonight. With less than three days until the polls close, the Tories STILL haven't told us where their £12bn of welfare cuts are coming from, despite Cameron, Osborne, David Gauke etc being repeatedly pressed about this.
The BBC did a brief explainer the other day of what we seem to know so far, but they're still at least $4bn short. And it's assuming that the cuts outlined in the leaked DWP document would all be happening, despite the fact the Tories denied it at the time, so the gap could be even bigger. Of particular concern to the people on this board would be:
*The proposal to limit Carers Allowance to those eligible for Universal Credit - so if you and your partner's monthly take home is more than £525 or you've got more than £6k in savings that rules you out.
Taxing disability benefits - It's not clear whether parents will be taxed on the DLA they receive on behalf of their kids, or it just affects adults, but it's likely to take a chunk out of disabled people's budgets.
*Changing contributory JSA and ESA - the piece doesn't say explicitly but it reads like they're talking about abolishing it completely. At the moment if you lose your job and you've paid enough NI contributions over the last 2 years then you're eligible for contributory JSA for up to 6 months. However, if contributory JSA is abolished, you'll no longer be eligible if you have more than 16k in savings or if your partner works fulltime. This is going to make it really difficult for family budgets at what's a stressful enough time as it is.
*Limiting child benefit to the 1st 2 kids - it's unclear whether this would only apply to new claims, and what happens with fostering or if divorcees with more than 1 kid re-marry.
What really concerns me about the Carers' Allowance and Contributory JSA/ESA proposals is that combined with recent attempts by the Tories to rebrand National Insurance contributions as "The Jobs Tax" is that it's an even more concerted effort to paint benefits as a handout to the poor and feckless rather than a return on the NI contributions we've made. If they succeed in breaking the link to contributions then it's going to be much harder to justify decent levels of benefits, when most people will think that they're never going to be eligible anyway.
A sign of the times I guess, but I do find it rather sad that so many people are now so dependant on state benefits, that it would play a major role in deciding who they actually vote for. There are now government websites here in Oz where one can enter their personal circumstances and then be presented with a list of all the "entitlements" they can apply for and the sums they can receive in doing so. I fully accept that there is a need to support some unfortunate people in society, but a whole new industry has now developed around getting as much money out of the government as possible for as little effort as possible. Many Western nations, now bankrupt, are still encouraging thousands of migrants, lured by generous welfare systems, whereas they receive little or nothing in their mother nations. My vote would go to any party who displayed a recognition of the dangers posed by making its people over reliant on welfare and who tried to ensure that it was only paid to those truely in need. People, where possible, need to be encouraged to support themselves, not be encouraged to apply for available state hand outs. "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money", well, the money has now run out!
But the whole point of contributary JSA and ESA is that you do support yourself, but those benefits are there to help cushion the blow for a short period if you get sick and are unable to work, or you lose your job. It's a bit like parachute payments when you get relegated from the premier league - you have expenses and commitments based on your regular previous income that you can't drop straight away, and this gives you a bit of breathing space to sort yourself out without spiraling into bankruptcy and losing your home. And more to the point, it's one of the reasons why National Insurance was set up in the first place. They aren't handouts but payouts on your insurance policy.
These benefits aren't about dependency, they're about making sure that the social safety net is there for you when things go wrong. And as loads of people on this board can testify, you've got no way of knowing how or when that'll happen.
How can anyone vote Labour when Ed Miliband has said he wants to make Islamophobia illegal? Literally the least intelligent promise I've ever heard and a dangerous precedent to set.
You'd think the moron might have learnt from the Rotherham scandal.
I completely agree with him, all forms of racism and discrimination due to culture or religion is wrong. He's not saying we should lie down and let ourselves be attacked ffs he is saying we shouldn't assume that because someone is a Muslim then they are a terrorist or a child abuser etc and that is true. Also I don't know how any intelligent person can use the Rotherham saga to say every Muslim should be feared, it was a gang/group of people that happened to be Muslims. There has been many peodophiles, peodophile rings and child traffickers etc that have been/ are all made up of Middle aged white men are we all to fear middle aged white men? Maybe we should fear all bbc workers or catholic priests. There has been hundreds of Christian terrorist attacks should the rest of the world fear Christians?
Seriously if you think this is a reason not to vote Ed Milliband then you must be running out of real reasons.
People of a homosexual orientation may dislike Islam as under its ruling they'd be killed. But should that person be critical then they'd face a jail term or other punishment? What a ludicrous policy.
Of course the Rotherham scandal is relevant. It is the fear of being labelled an islamophobe that meant the authorities never acted upon men who many knew were abusing children. Do you think that the risk of them being criminalised is going to prevent that from happening again?
...There are now government websites here in Oz where one can enter their personal circumstances and then be presented with a list of all the "entitlements" they can apply for and the sums they can receive in doing so...
This is quite right and proper. If the law of the land is that tax revenue is to be spent on certain things then it's only right that the government spends it on what it says it will, when it says it will - i.e. where there is a social need. If certain monies have been budgeted to be spent in a particular way, they should be spent in that way not hoarded, and not spent on other things. There's been a lot talk in recent years about the level of unpaid tax - and quite rightly so. What is rather less prominent in the public discourse it the level of unclaimed benefits - currently over £5bn a year in the UK. If this money found its way to those who have a right to it, a lot of social problems could be alleviated.
People of a homosexual orientation may dislike Islam as under its ruling they'd be killed. But should that person be critical then they'd face a jail term or other punishment? What a ludicrous policy.
Of course the Rotherham scandal is relevant. It is the fear of being labelled an islamophobe that meant the authorities never acted upon men who many knew were abusing children. Do you think that the risk of them being criminalised is going to prevent that from happening again?
Agreed it's a virtually impossible law to enforce. When some one is critical of Islam on "the big question" on a Sunday morning does that mean they'll be banged up? You should be free to be an arsehole and criticise some ones personal choices and religion is a personal choice. Insighting violence etc is already illegal. The government should make sure the police enforce the current laws to sufficiently protect the Islamic community.
How can anyone vote Labour when Ed Miliband has said he wants to make Islamophobia illegal? Literally the least intelligent promise I've ever heard and a dangerous precedent to set.
You'd think the moron might have learnt from the Rotherham scandal.
I completely agree with him, all forms of racism and discrimination due to culture or religion is wrong. He's not saying we should lie down and let ourselves be attacked ffs he is saying we shouldn't assume that because someone is a Muslim then they are a terrorist or a child abuser etc and that is true. Also I don't know how any intelligent person can use the Rotherham saga to say every Muslim should be feared, it was a gang/group of people that happened to be Muslims. There has been many peodophiles, peodophile rings and child traffickers etc that have been/ are all made up of Middle aged white men are we all to fear middle aged white men? Maybe we should fear all bbc workers or catholic priests. There has been hundreds of Christian terrorist attacks should the rest of the world fear Christians?
Seriously if you think this is a reason not to vote Ed Milliband then you must be running out of real reasons.
I'm not sure anyone is saying we should be afraid of all Muslims as a result of Rotherham, however, when fear of being called a racist or an Islamaphobe stops people from carrying out checks, especially when involving minors then we have a real problem.
Of course, people should not go out of their way to be insulting, however raising something they consider to be a real concern should not be made illegal.
Ed Miliband has time and time again proven himself to be an enemy of freedom of expression. He wants to end the freedom of the press, he wants to make it illegal to criticise a religion and he shows the same wanton disregard for civil liberties as far as surveillance goes as his predecessors did. We only have to look at Turkey's position where it is illegal to criticise the Government to see why it's not a good idea to let politicians believe freedom of expression is a privilege instead of a human right. I suppose society will be fairer as long as everyone shuts up and obeys the Government like good little proles. Viva la revolution indeed.
Ed Miliband has time and time again proven himself to be an enemy of freedom of expression. He wants to end the freedom of the press, he wants to make it illegal to criticise a religion and he shows the same wanton disregard for civil liberties as far as surveillance goes as his predecessors did. We only have to look at Turkey's position where it is illegal to criticise the Government to see why it's not a good idea to let politicians believe freedom of expression is a privilege instead of a human right. I suppose society will be fairer as long as everyone shuts up and obeys the Government like good little proles. Viva la revolution indeed.
Too true. Trying to finish the job that his hero Tony started. steer well clear!
Ed Miliband has time and time again proven himself to be an enemy of freedom of expression. He wants to end the freedom of the press, he wants to make it illegal to criticise a religion and he shows the same wanton disregard for civil liberties as far as surveillance goes as his predecessors did. We only have to look at Turkey's position where it is illegal to criticise the Government to see why it's not a good idea to let politicians believe freedom of expression is a privilege instead of a human right. I suppose society will be fairer as long as everyone shuts up and obeys the Government like good little proles. Viva la revolution indeed.
As you would say when someone posts something you disagree with, that is complete nonsense.
I like the fact that he has always declared himself to be an atheist. In fact, if we ended up with a Lib/Lab coalition that would make me incredibly proud because it would mean the country was being led by a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who were both committed atheists.
Ed Miliband has time and time again proven himself to be an enemy of freedom of expression. He wants to end the freedom of the press, he wants to make it illegal to criticise a religion and he shows the same wanton disregard for civil liberties as far as surveillance goes as his predecessors did. We only have to look at Turkey's position where it is illegal to criticise the Government to see why it's not a good idea to let politicians believe freedom of expression is a privilege instead of a human right. I suppose society will be fairer as long as everyone shuts up and obeys the Government like good little proles. Viva la revolution indeed.
As you would say when someone posts something you disagree with, that is complete nonsense.
I like the fact that he has always declared himself to be an atheist. In fact, if we ended up with a Lib/Lab coalition that would make me incredibly proud because it would mean the country was being led by a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who were both committed atheists.
I only say something is complete nonsense if it is demonstrably untrue. Ed's record on civil liberties and freedom of expression is poor, this is backed up by his words and actions.
...There are now government websites here in Oz where one can enter their personal circumstances and then be presented with a list of all the "entitlements" they can apply for and the sums they can receive in doing so...
This is quite right and proper. If the law of the land is that tax revenue is to be spent on certain things then it's only right that the government spends it on what it says it will, when it says it will - i.e. where there is a social need. If certain monies have been budgeted to be spent in a particular way, they should be spent in that way not hoarded, and not spent on other things. There's been a lot talk in recent years about the level of unpaid tax - and quite rightly so. What is rather less prominent in the public discourse it the level of unclaimed benefits - currently over £5bn a year in the UK. If this money found its way to those who have a right to it, a lot of social problems could be alleviated.
I completely and unequivocally disagree. This is money that belongs to the workers and people who have paid their taxes. It should be spent on building better hospitals and providing better pensions for people who have worked hard and deserve it. It should not be for the benefit of some family who choose to sit on the sofa all day watching TV and stuffing their faces with doughnuts. Welfare should be there as a last resort. There was a time when people had personal pride and tried to avoid claiming the dole unless there was no other option. Even then they tried to remove themselves from the system as soon as possible. People now view these payments as being their right, when they should be viewed as being a temporary privilege. The result of this is that we have developed a society of depressed, often overweight people with little pride or self respect. This money would be far better spent providing training courses for people to re-skill, or for paying the unemployed to carry out work in the community. It should not be a free gift. We should be discouraging people from going on benefits, not encouraging them. Many social problems could be alleviated by helping people and encouraging them to do something useful with their lives, not just waste away their lives on benefits.
Ed Miliband has time and time again proven himself to be an enemy of freedom of expression. He wants to end the freedom of the press, he wants to make it illegal to criticise a religion and he shows the same wanton disregard for civil liberties as far as surveillance goes as his predecessors did. We only have to look at Turkey's position where it is illegal to criticise the Government to see why it's not a good idea to let politicians believe freedom of expression is a privilege instead of a human right. I suppose society will be fairer as long as everyone shuts up and obeys the Government like good little proles. Viva la revolution indeed.
As you would say when someone posts something you disagree with, that is complete nonsense.
I like the fact that he has always declared himself to be an atheist. In fact, if we ended up with a Lib/Lab coalition that would make me incredibly proud because it would mean the country was being led by a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who were both committed atheists.
I only say something is complete nonsense if it is demonstrably untrue. Ed's record on civil liberties and freedom of expression is poor, this is backed up by his words and actions.
Three assertions there. And again, all three demonstrably false.
Fiiish. Do you work full time at Conservative HQ or for Rupert Murdoch ?
Oh my sides, please stop or they will surely split.
Are you, Red, Chizz and the other Labour apologists on here all secretly controlled by Alastair Campbell, since all you do is throw personal abuse at anyone who posts anything remotely anti-Labour?
Three assertions there. And again, all three demonstrably false.
Demonstrate it then.
For the first one, just look back on your posts on this thread.
For the second, well as an example read his comments about Palestine and his commitment to recognise the state of Palestine.
For the third, see above.
You can't demonstrate the first one. Fair enough.
Second and third are meaningless, Palestine has nothing to do with the civil liberties I was referring to. You might be thinking of human rights which is a different issue.
Fiiish. Do you work full time at Conservative HQ or for Rupert Murdoch ?
Oh my sides, please stop or they will surely split.
Are you, Red, Chizz and the other Labour apologists on here all secretly controlled by Alastair Campbell, since all you do is throw personal abuse at anyone who posts anything remotely anti-Labour?
Is asking if you work for the Tories 'personal abuse'?
Comments
Did I not try to tell you that a week ago,
I also said brand is a massive ego prick who when people grow up they realise how much bollox he says,
One meeting with Milliband and he has not just decided to vote he has now all of a sudden forgot what he hated about ed balls up
So true ...and Balls is still being hidden in this election campaign as he is such a vote loser ...bit of a concern that they are afraid to show the possible next Chancellor of the Exchequer to the public at the moment .... I find this worrying
mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/delia-smith-ed-miliband-live-5633755
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3067119/Whoever-ends-seats-form-government-signals-Balls-amid-claims-Miliband-grab-power-loses.html
telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11580348/Ed-Balls-dismisses-Labours-no-money-left-note-as-silly.html
One could argue the same point about a number of senior Tories of course...Eric Pickles anyone?
The BBC did a brief explainer the other day of what we seem to know so far, but they're still at least $4bn short. And it's assuming that the cuts outlined in the leaked DWP document would all be happening, despite the fact the Tories denied it at the time, so the gap could be even bigger. Of particular concern to the people on this board would be:
*The proposal to limit Carers Allowance to those eligible for Universal Credit - so if you and your partner's monthly take home is more than £525 or you've got more than £6k in savings that rules you out.
Taxing disability benefits - It's not clear whether parents will be taxed on the DLA they receive on behalf of their kids, or it just affects adults, but it's likely to take a chunk out of disabled people's budgets.
*Changing contributory JSA and ESA - the piece doesn't say explicitly but it reads like they're talking about abolishing it completely. At the moment if you lose your job and you've paid enough NI contributions over the last 2 years then you're eligible for contributory JSA for up to 6 months. However, if contributory JSA is abolished, you'll no longer be eligible if you have more than 16k in savings or if your partner works fulltime. This is going to make it really difficult for family budgets at what's a stressful enough time as it is.
*Limiting child benefit to the 1st 2 kids - it's unclear whether this would only apply to new claims, and what happens with fostering or if divorcees with more than 1 kid re-marry.
What really concerns me about the Carers' Allowance and Contributory JSA/ESA proposals is that combined with recent attempts by the Tories to rebrand National Insurance contributions as "The Jobs Tax" is that it's an even more concerted effort to paint benefits as a handout to the poor and feckless rather than a return on the NI contributions we've made. If they succeed in breaking the link to contributions then it's going to be much harder to justify decent levels of benefits, when most people will think that they're never going to be eligible anyway.
You'd think the moron might have learnt from the Rotherham scandal.
"Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money", well, the money has now run out!
These benefits aren't about dependency, they're about making sure that the social safety net is there for you when things go wrong. And as loads of people on this board can testify, you've got no way of knowing how or when that'll happen.
Seriously if you think this is a reason not to vote Ed Milliband then you must be running out of real reasons.
People of a homosexual orientation may dislike Islam as under its ruling they'd be killed. But should that person be critical then they'd face a jail term or other punishment? What a ludicrous policy.
Of course the Rotherham scandal is relevant. It is the fear of being labelled an islamophobe that meant the authorities never acted upon men who many knew were abusing children. Do you think that the risk of them being criminalised is going to prevent that from happening again?
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/money-matters/claiming-benefits/unclaimed-benefits/
Of course, people should not go out of their way to be insulting, however raising something they consider to be a real concern should not be made illegal.
I like the fact that he has always declared himself to be an atheist. In fact, if we ended up with a Lib/Lab coalition that would make me incredibly proud because it would mean the country was being led by a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who were both committed atheists.
Would be the most obedient little lap dog Obama/Hillary/Bush have ever had!
Are you, Red, Chizz and the other Labour apologists on here all secretly controlled by Alastair Campbell, since all you do is throw personal abuse at anyone who posts anything remotely anti-Labour?
For the second, well as an example read his comments about Palestine and his commitment to recognise the state of Palestine.
For the third, see above.
There are many many more but I have to go out now
Second and third are meaningless, Palestine has nothing to do with the civil liberties I was referring to. You might be thinking of human rights which is a different issue.