Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

People who benefit under Labour classed as "unlucky" and "vulnerable"

Announcements Posted on
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    The most people who don't deserve it.
    In your opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    In your opinion.
    How does a pensioner who couldnt be bothered to put by for a rainy day and someone who didn't bother to take school seriously count as deserved?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    In a shocking first for TSR, an academically successful but socially and politically ignorant and inexperienced student comes to the conclusion that experiencing poverty and misfortune is a personal choice that people make.

    We'll all remember the day we read this thread.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    EDIT: My other gripe with Labour is their "no child should live in poverty" policy. This means either:

    -Poor people will be banned from having kids
    -People who have kids will not be poor

    Obviously they didnt implement the former. What does the latter mean? If you are a couple are you are poor, if you have kids you will be lifted out of poverty because that child cannot be living under poverty. In other words, "have kids and we will shower you with benefits. Dont have kids and we wont."
    No it's means trying to avoid having people in poverty in the first place!

    Most people know that Labour arn't as for the unlucky and vulnerable as they used to be or present to be but unfortunately there is no one else who is.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    How does a pensioner who couldnt be bothered to put by for a rainy day and someone who didn't bother to take school seriously count as deserved?
    Statements like this make me mad. You don't know peoples situations so can't make assumptions like that! My Nan had five kids when her husband walked out on her because she didn't want to have any more. He took all her money with him and she had to work for literately pennies! There was hardly any kind of welfare or income support and no CSA and only tax credits for the eldest child. What she supposed to do let her children starve say "sorry kids got to save this money for when I'm old so no dinner tonight!" She's not a special case either this was true for a lot of people in the 50's and 60's.

    They couldn't save because it was not physically possible. It's like if I said to a tramp I'm not giving you any change you shouldn't have gotten rid of that Ferrari then you wouldn't be in this position. They didn't have a Ferrari to get rid of in the first place.:rolleyes:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Personally I dislike Labour and I come from a poor background and area, I think they keep people in poverty. By making it so you would have a better quality of life on benefits instead of working means people are less likely to go into work, where they can actually go up the ladder if they work hard enough by getting pay rises and promotions thus they keep you in poverty. They allowed people to have children they couldn't afford thus not only keeping a person/family in poverty as children are expensive and for women tend to mean you're not going to be climbing the career ladder any time soon but also bringing a child into a impoverish lifestyle. They screwed the education system, anyone who has been to a school in Tower Hamlets or Hackney can tell you that lessons are always disturbed by misbehaviour and/or filled with people who couldn't give a **** and did nothing but mess around pissing their life down the toilet. They made the exams too easy, not teaching people what they need to know to get a good job later on and the stupid foundation tier papers at GCSE just damn a child into failing and not trying anymore. By making so many worthless degree courses and allowing so many in to do degrees they undervalued the worth of a degree in this country making it harder to get a job for graduates and makes it harder to compete on a global scale, so even a poor child who gets to university can still be stuck in poverty after. By allowing in such a vast amount of unskilled immigrants they allowed the jobs that would normally be done by the poorer people in this country to be taken from them as most of the time the immigrant will have less pay. This also screws over young people as companies would rather hire immigrants than hire a young person and train them. Anyone who wants to argue that it is because British people are lazy (which isn't the whole case but part of it, most of it is down to costs) that again is Labours fault as their policies led to the production of the current lazy generations. Then they even let in immigrants who can't work thus creating more poverty. Just to make it clear I'm not anti immigration, just anti mass immigration of unskilled workers on a small Island that can't handle it. But then on the other side I dislike the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, respect and BNP. I personally wouldn't vote any of them which leaves me screwed as to who I'm going to vote for in future.
    • Thread Starter
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    In a shocking first for TSR, an academically successful but socially and politically ignorant and inexperienced student comes to the conclusion that experiencing poverty and misfortune is a personal choice that people make.

    We'll all remember the day we read this thread.
    Once again, another idiot cannot read. Where did I say experiencing poverty is a choice people make?

    I said those who mess about will end up jobless. Learn to read.
    • Thread Starter
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beebumble)
    No it's means trying to avoid having people in poverty in the first place!
    Does the policy aim to ensure every child born is not living in a poverty-stricken family, yes or no?
    • Thread Starter
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beebumble)
    Statements like this make me mad. You don't know peoples situations so can't make assumptions like that! My Nan had five kids when her husband walked out on her because she didn't want to have any more. He took all her money with him and she had to work for literately pennies! There was hardly any kind of welfare or income support and no CSA and only tax credits for the eldest child. What she supposed to do let her children starve say "sorry kids got to save this money for when I'm old so no dinner tonight!" She's not a special case either this was true for a lot of people in the 50's and 60's.

    They couldn't save because it was not physically possible. It's like if I said to a tramp I'm not giving you any change you shouldn't have gotten rid of that Ferrari then you wouldn't be in this position. They didn't have a Ferrari to get rid of in the first place.:rolleyes:
    Either your grandad was a complete nutcase or there is more to that story than you're telling....

    She should have been a little more sensible before having 5 kids with someone!

    Im fed up of all these sympathy stories. Weep, weep- think about the consequences first!
    • Thread Starter
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nightstar-27)
    Personally I dislike Labour and I come from a poor background and area, I think they keep people in poverty. By making it so you would have a better quality of life on benefits instead of working means people are less likely to go into work, where they can actually go up the ladder if they work hard enough by getting pay rises and promotions thus they keep you in poverty. They allowed people to have children they couldn't afford thus not only keeping a person/family in poverty as children are expensive and for women tend to mean you're not going to be climbing the career ladder any time soon but also bringing a child into a impoverish lifestyle. They screwed the education system, anyone who has been to a school in Tower Hamlets or Hackney can tell you that lessons are always disturbed by misbehaviour and/or filled with people who couldn't give a **** and did nothing but mess around pissing their life down the toilet. They made the exams too easy, not teaching people what they need to know to get a good job later on and the stupid foundation tier papers at GCSE just damn a child into failing and not trying anymore. By making so many worthless degree courses and allowing so many in to do degrees they undervalued the worth of a degree in this country making it harder to get a job for graduates and makes it harder to compete on a global scale, so even a poor child who gets to university can still be stuck in poverty after. By allowing in such a vast amount of unskilled immigrants they allowed the jobs that would normally be done by the poorer people in this country to be taken from them as most of the time the immigrant will have less pay. This also screws over young people as companies would rather hire immigrants than hire a young person and train them. Anyone who wants to argue that it is because British people are lazy (which isn't the whole case but part of it, most of it is down to costs) that again is Labours fault as their policies led to the production of the current lazy generations. Then they even let in immigrants who can't work thus creating more poverty. Just to make it clear I'm not anti immigration, just anti mass immigration of unskilled workers on a small Island that can't handle it. But then on the other side I dislike the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, respect and BNP. I personally wouldn't vote any of them which leaves me screwed as to who I'm going to vote for in future.
    Absolutely spot on!

    I grew up in a poor area too, but fortunately the surrounding areas are tory and I attended a grammar school- much to the dislike of socialists who wish to dumb everyone down.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Does the policy aim to ensure every child born is not living in a poverty-stricken family, yes or no?
    Yes theoretically because it aims for there to be no poverty for children to be born into still doesn't mean that in the time being they'll stop people having children.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Either your grandad was a complete nutcase or there is more to that story than you're telling....

    She should have been a little more sensible before having 5 kids with someone!

    Im fed up of all these sympathy stories. Weep, weep- think about the consequences first!
    Maybe he was a nutcase I don't know I never met him. Have you never heard of husbands leaving their wife and kids before?

    It was the 50's he was threatening to leave her with nothing. Plus marital rape was legal back then.

    It's not a sympathy story it's a true story that destroys your logic and was aiming a question which you refused to answer. Should a women who has no money be condemned for having no money because the little she did have was spent preventing her children from starving?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Absolutely spot on!

    I grew up in a poor area too, but fortunately the surrounding areas are tory and I attended a grammar school- much to the dislike of socialists who wish to dumb everyone down.
    It saddens me that there are actually no real parties out their that will help the poorer areas of Britain. What they need is encouragement and jobs. Not a lazy culture and benefits.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Cue all the people that are going to talk about the tories, they'll being up -

    Mining Industry
    British Engineering
    Financial Deregulation.
    On the issue of British Engineering, the UK has just posted its first car industry trade surplus since Labour nationalised British Leyland. Those damn tories are at it again!
    • Thread Starter
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beebumble)
    Yes theoretically because it aims for there to be no poverty for children to be born into still doesn't mean that in the time being they'll stop people having children.
    Right so if you have kids, Labour will make your family escape poverty?

    You have two adults with kids and two adults without kids- the ones with kids will be lifted out of poverty whilst the other two adults will not.

    There's the initiative to have kids- even if you cannot afford them!

    Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Right so if you have kids, Labour will make your family escape poverty?

    You have two adults with kids and two adults without kids- the ones with kids will be lifted out of poverty whilst the other two adults will not.

    There's the initiative to have kids- even if you cannot afford them!

    Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
    The aim is for no one to be in poverty whether they have kids or not. So if they do have kids those kids are not born into poverty.
    • Thread Starter
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beebumble)
    The aim is for no one to be in poverty whether they have kids or not. So if they do have kids those kids are not born into poverty.
    Do the two adults without kids receive help from this policy whilst they are adults?
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Do the two adults without kids receive help from this policy whilst they are adults?
    If they need help yes but in the end no one will need help to get out of poverty because it simply won't exist.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    OP, you will very much like this which just popped up in my Youtube feed, this guy is the definition of a labour politician, squirming, avoiding the issue, useless politician speak, well-spoken, middle class background ... "fighting" for the working and under classes, by their very nature, working class people are conservative, in the words of Martin J Willet.

    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ^ Not farage, I mean that tit he is debating, some Labour peer with another speech impediment which makes his politispeak more annoying than it is.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 27, 2012
New on TSR

Naughtiest thing you did at school

Did you get away with it or were you punished?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.