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

Any Tories care to defend this? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    Please elaborate?

    (If you are referring to the FPTP system as an example that was settled in a democratic referendum in which AV lost. Even though I am against FPTP on a personal note, I support the will of the people)

    Say the people vote to stay in the EU, I will hate it and be angry admittedly but I will accept it, retract from my eurosceptic standpoint and leave it at that
    It's absurd that you keep bringing up your obsession with the EU in a discussion about the HoL.


    What is to stop Cameron and the Conservatives gerry-mandering their way into total and absolute control of the House, and as a result, the entire country meaning they can pass whatever law they want without impunity?

    What is to stop David Cameron, or any future party leader from rigging the elections and passing laws that will give him authoritarian powers?


    Democracy does involve the will of the people, but if you take away the checks and balances on the people chosen to wield that authority, it quickly falls apart.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It's absurd that you keep bringing up your obsession with the EU in a discussion about the HoL.


    What is to stop Cameron and the Conservatives gerry-mandering their way into total and absolute control of the House, and as a result, the entire country meaning they can pass whatever law they want without impunity?

    What is to stop David Cameron, or any future party leader from rigging the elections and passing laws that will give him authoritarian powers?


    Democracy does involve the will of the people, but if you take away the checks and balances on the people chosen to wield that authority, it quickly falls apart.
    Independent bodies manage the election rules. Cameron can't get shifty with that. I think the Tories should be able to enforce their manifesto and then we have the chance to vote them out come 2020. That's democracy. If your desire to keep the HoL rests on the fear Cameron will install a dictatorship style of politics then I can't play along as that is absurd. From my view the Tories are too soft and liberal to go down that route and it would be illegal anyway
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    Independent bodies manage the election rules. Cameron can't get shifty with that.
    Why should an unelected body be in charge of how elections are run? Is that not an affront to democracy?

    I think the Tories should be able to enforce their manifesto and then we have the chance to vote them out come 2020. That's democracy.
    And what about things that are not on their manifesto? What if they enact it into policy? What do you do then?

    If your desire to keep the HoL rests on the fear Cameron will install a dictatorship style of politics then I can't play along as that is absurd.
    My argument is that the HoL curbs the excesses of elected party politicians, and makes the government think again about some of their policies.

    From my view the Tories are too soft and liberal to go down that route and it would be illegal anyway
    If done right, the Tories will be able to gerry-mander and worm their way into making sure that no opposition party will come close to challenging them ever again.

    "Soft and liberal" - Whatever are you talking about? Trade union bills, campaign finance bills, electoral reform are all policies that the Conservative government have tried to rush through, just 9 months after gaining a slim majority.


    And here's the kicker - It won't even be illegal.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    Independent bodies manage the election rules. Cameron can't get shifty with that. I think the Tories should be able to enforce their manifesto and then we have the chance to vote them out come 2020. That's democracy. If your desire to keep the HoL rests on the fear Cameron will install a dictatorship style of politics then I can't play along as that is absurd. From my view the Tories are too soft and liberal to go down that route and it would be illegal anyway
    Your problem is you do not understand how bills are passed to Royal Assent (Made Law).

    The Work & Welfare Bill has passed report stage where all major amendments have been made. The commons then have one chance to try and satisfy the ruling majority of the Lords and if they don't then its boo hoo. The Lords may just decide to rebel like they did with the Tax Credit cuts.

    Just because the Conservatives are the ruling majority in the commons doesn't give them a licence to do what the hell they like.

    The House of Lords is like a proxy to which all new laws have to be moral and in good character. It stops dictators from doing what the hell they like.

    I think the Lords who said no to the Tax Credit cuts and have who have also blocked the Work & Welfare Bill have good moral conscious. I know that is a bit rich coming from me as someone who has limited knowledge of what real empathy is but I don't think the word morality describes starving children and making lives for disabled people like myself worse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Why should an unelected body be in charge of how elections are run? Is that not an affront to democracy?



    And what about things that are not on their manifesto? What if they enact it into policy? What do you do then?



    My argument is that the HoL curbs the excesses of elected party politicians, and makes the government think again about some of their policies.



    If done right, the Tories will be able to gerry-mander and worm their way into making sure that no opposition party will come close to challenging them ever again.

    "Soft and liberal" - Whatever are you talking about? Trade union bills, campaign finance bills, electoral reform are all policies that the Conservative government have tried to rush through, just 9 months after gaining a slim majority.


    And here's the kicker - It won't even be illegal.
    An independent body has to run the election process, it helps enforce democracy by eliminating bias that any one party would have. My argument is unelected bodies dictating governmental policy which is wrong. These electoral institutions are not dictating policy like education, defence ect.

    Well it's impossible to not pass laws that are not in the manifesto as it all ties in with current affairs. The Syrian question was not even a topic during the election campaign. But you must remember, you are voting for a representive in which you trust to make judgement calls. Therefore the policy should still go through as these MPs were elected to be trusted.

    If you disagree with a policy, use your vote in local, regional and general elections to voice your opposition. I do not understand the confusion. If the Tories are so bad then people will choose to vote them out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Your problem is you do not understand how bills are passed to Royal Assent (Made Law).

    The Work & Welfare Bill has passed report stage where all major amendments have been made. The commons then have one chance to try and satisfy the ruling majority of the Lords and if they don't then its boo hoo. The Lords may just decide to rebel like they did with the Tax Credit cuts.

    Just because the Conservatives are the ruling majority in the commons doesn't give them a licence to do what the hell they like.

    The House of Lords is like a proxy to which all new laws have to be moral and in good character. It stops dictators from doing what the hell they like.

    I think the Lords who said no to the Tax Credit cuts and have who have also blocked the Work & Welfare Bill have good moral conscious. I know that is a bit rich coming from me as someone who has limited knowledge of what real empathy is but I don't think the word morality describes starving children and making lives for disabled people like myself worse.
    You have not read my previous comments on the House of Lords. I understand the due process, I am saying I disagree with the House of Lords and oppose the whole idea of the HoL.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    You have not read my previous comments on the House of Lords. I understand the due process, I am saying I disagree with the House of Lords and oppose the whole idea of the HoL.
    Of course. I expect a lot of Tories to be extremely upset about not being able to cut disabled peoples welfare. I mean after the Tory conference and Disabled People Against Cuts throwing eggs at them I can some what understand the trauma.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Of course. I expect a lot of Tories to be extremely upset about not being able to cut disabled peoples welfare. I mean after the Tory conference and Disabled People Against Cuts throwing eggs at them I can some what understand the trauma.
    Huh? I've never voted for Tories and have opposed the HoL since the Blair era. It was a left wing stance that prompted my initial opposition, what are you going on about?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squirrel777)
    An independent body has to run the election process, it helps enforce democracy by eliminating bias that any one party would have. My argument is unelected bodies dictating governmental policy which is wrong. These electoral institutions are not dictating policy like education, defence ect.
    An independent body is useless if the terms dictated to it have come from a party that has already rigged the vote in their favour, through legitimate means.

    Well it's impossible to not pass laws that are not in the manifesto as it all ties in with current affairs. The Syrian question was not even a topic during the election campaign. But you must remember, you are voting for a representive in which you trust to make judgement calls. Therefore the policy should still go through as these MPs were elected to be trusted.
    What on earth are you blabbing about?

    We wouldn't even need a democracy to implement this. A technocracy would be a much better idea if we were to rely on the trust of MP's to steer the country in the correct direction.

    If you disagree with a policy, use your vote in local, regional and general elections to voice your opposition. I do not understand the confusion. If the Tories are so bad then people will choose to vote them out.
    But "opposition" doesn't have to be listened to, and in your system of governance (with the abolition of the HoL), there would be no body that would rein in the power of the Government.

    The HoL is a fallible body but it is the only body that we have for purging the excesses of a government that is intent on consolidating power for years to come.


    As for your "voting out", you seem to have been spoon fed something that sits rather unwell with your position. Democracy is simply not about majority voting but having a system that is fair, open and transparent and not subjected to abuses.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Ohhhhhh. Apologies. I didn't realise. To be honest my issues isn't with benefits. It's with the way it is shared out
    This is what they all say when confronted with the real lived experience of being disabled under the current system. "Oh, you're a genuine claimant, sure you should get the money, it's all those other scroungers I'm against."

    And there is quite enough for everyone - why must it only be the poorest who have to cut their cloth?

    I personally am heartened to hear the scare stories about people claiming the full rate for bad backs etc. It reassures me that those who really need support must also be getting it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    I haven't seen a story so far where other factors haven't had a huge impact on how the person died. A lot of these people were already mentally ill and doctors or coroners say the cut in benefits 'triggered' them - I don't know how familiar you are with mental health, but 'triggers' are not the cause of the death in that case. Anorexic people for example are 'triggered' by people talking about what diet they are on, and this can cause their illness to get worse, but that's the illness - it's not the fault of the person talking about their diet. It's still the fault of the mental illness itself, and anyone with mental health issues can be triggered by various things. Someone who has depression, with one of the most common symptoms being a feeling of helplessness or like there's no way out, will obviously find a cut in their benefits more sensitive than someone who is not depressed. They may be triggered by having their benefits cut, but their illness has killed them, not the benefits cut.

    And some of them like take David Clapson in that article: "They included David Clapson, 59, a former soldier from Stevenage. He was a diabetic who was found dead in his home last July after his benefits were slashed and he did not apply for hardship payments." Why didn't he? Take some responsibility for yourself if you're on welfare, people aren't going to come round ladling it out to you.

    So far I haven't seen a single news story that has convinced me of a direct correlation between benefit cuts and death. There are always other factors or mental illness involved.
    You do realise people aren't told about hardship payments deliberately by the benefits office. And many of these people are vulnerable, can't use a computer etc.

    If there is eg mental illness involved then it is an indictment of the cuts in that area.

    Tory cuts are morally bankrupt and play havoc across the system by putting people into acute crisis. That is why they end up spending more money overall. But the Tories will pay any price to bully and push around the poorest.

    It's a complete lie that we can't afford to support the weakest people in our society. I've noticed even Tories have given up trying to claim it's about cutting the deficit or whatever ******** they used to say.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    It's proportional! There are more old people than there are on regular benefits. And you know why we give old people pensions? Because a majority have worked their arses off. You are wrong about welfare spending. In entirety it is almost 698 billion. It makes up 10% maximum. Also ESA is not the only benefits, overall we spend over 40 billion in benefits. Stop drawing up stats which support your argument and ignoring the truth.
    I already provided per capita stats which you obv chose to ignore.

    Pensions: £8,000
    ESA: £1,500

    Stop lying

    Also it doesn't matter whether they have worked already or not. ESA enables people to do what work they can in the future. Finance works both ways, that's literally the point of debt, money, capitalism.

    Even if not thinking about work ESA puts demand in the economy. The people contribute by buying what they need at their local shops. Otherwise the money that now goes in tax to fund ESA would just be squirrelled away in some rich person's bank account - that is to say, invested in some high growth foreign country by the bank.

    Benefits boost the consumer economy. They also have the happy side effect of not letting people die just because they're poor, although I accept with Tories this is considered a bad thing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Is that what I said? No. Don't twist words. I said people claiming they have committed suicide because of the DWP is rubbish - which it is.
    Even in those cases where they write a suicide note blaming the DWP?

    I guess you can put words in the mouth of the dead all you like if it is politically expedient. We know Tories have few boundaries and little decency when it comes to their treatment of the poor.

    But others like me will call you out on it.

    Disgusting attitude when people are killing themselves because of your party's policies. I consider it genocide.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It's absurd that you keep bringing up your obsession with the EU in a discussion about the HoL.


    What is to stop Cameron and the Conservatives gerry-mandering their way into total and absolute control of the House, and as a result, the entire country meaning they can pass whatever law they want without impunity?

    What is to stop David Cameron, or any future party leader from rigging the elections and passing laws that will give him authoritarian powers?


    Democracy does involve the will of the people, but if you take away the checks and balances on the people chosen to wield that authority, it quickly falls apart.
    He is doing a good enough job of gerrymandering as it is.

    Refer you to:
    - EVEL (which I consider a form of coup)
    - Flooding the Lords
    - Boundary review
    - Use of statutory instruments
    - Filibustering

    Still even with all this skulduggery his majority is so small the *******s can't seem to get any legislation through. When I was still counting last year they had been defeated on one major manifesto commitment per month. I hope their own rebels, both moderate and Eurosceptic, and the House of Lords continue to turn the government's hair grey.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    This is what they all say when confronted with the real lived experience of being disabled under the current system. "Oh, you're a genuine claimant, sure you should get the money, it's all those other scroungers I'm against."

    And there is quite enough for everyone - why must it only be the poorest who have to cut their cloth?

    I personally am heartened to hear the scare stories about people claiming the full rate for bad backs etc. It reassures me that those who really need support must also be getting it.
    Actually, I already acknowledged she was disabled. Her implication was that she had an income. When she said I PAY FOR what she meant was benefits pay for (aka the taxpayer pays for).

    Where does the money come from? We have had an influx of migrants to pay for, security threats to pay for, EU aid to pay for. Britain pays taxes, we need to make cuts where we can. If you cut it from migrants you have cries of racism, cut it from disabled cries of discrimination, raise the taxes of the rich they move industry, cut it from the poor and again we have discrimination. It's impossible.

    My mum is disabled. She cannot hear. Yet she has worked and doesn't claim benefits. It is a case by case situation. To lump them all in one group is impossible. You also seem to forget about benefits cheats and self-induced obesity.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I already provided per capita stats which you obv chose to ignore.

    Pensions: £8,000
    ESA: £1,500

    Stop lying

    Also it doesn't matter whether they have worked already or not. ESA enables people to do what work they can in the future. Finance works both ways, that's literally the point of debt, money, capitalism.

    Even if not thinking about work ESA puts demand in the economy. The people contribute by buying what they need at their local shops. Otherwise the money that now goes in tax to fund ESA would just be squirrelled away in some rich person's bank account - that is to say, invested in some high growth foreign country by the bank.

    Benefits boost the consumer economy. They also have the happy side effect of not letting people die just because they're poor, although I accept with Tories this is considered a bad thing.
    Yes but how many on ESA actually end up working? Many stay on it all their lives without holding down a job. It's alright having it, but it isn't working.

    This statement is completely untrue. If the middle and upper class have more wealth then they spend more. Most lower class try to save money, the middle and upper invest it and then spend some, and they spend a far greater amount. You seem to think that every rich person is privileged and gets mollycoddled by the government. Yet they contribute the most to the economy.

    This is a lie! Have you ever studied economics?! It doesn't work like that. And actually many homeless people refuse help because begging gets them money,and in fact most beggars aren't actually beggars, according to official stats.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    You also seem to forget about benefits cheats and self-induced obesity.
    This is rubbish. A lot of mental health medications cause weight gain. I should know since I've been taking Risperidone since I was a young adult. It causes tissue to swell and produces the term 'Psychotic Belly'. This is why the majority of mental health patients are overweight. The medication also causes increased appetite.

    Your whole comment on self-induced obesity is a ignorant out in the open for all to see.

    (Original post by sw651)
    Yes but how many on ESA actually end up working? Many stay on it all their lives without holding down a job. It's alright having it, but it isn't working.
    A lot of people on ESA work. They do as much as they are capable of doing. There is a program called Permitted Work. Here is the form for you to see I am not telling lies.

    http://www.pkc.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23634

    Permitted Work allows a person on ESA to work between 1 to 15 hours. Many disabled people use this program to get into the work place and work a couple of hours so they can contribute to society.

    Also others find that they are not hindered by their disability and then move onto getting 16 hour work contracts which allow them to get Tax Credits. Here is the proof.

    http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/ta...due-disability

    To be honest your entire opinion that people on ESA don't shift a finger is completely unfounded.

    ...................

    Anyway I already stated. I actually claim ESA myself. I am in the process of going back on Permitted Work very soon to work with my friends. Its like a Tax Credit system for disabled people inside the ESA system.

    Your suggestion is being rebuked right in front of you.

    And you are really ill informed on current Government policy. Iain Duncan Smith actually ecourages Permitted Work.

    Look at this link.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-system.html

    ................................ .................

    What is really damaging is forcing disabled people to work though and the whole Tory view of getting the disabled into work by cutting their benefits.

    The permitted work system and tax credit system (16 hours) existed long before the Tories. During Labour years people including myself where working and we didn't have all the fear triggering us and sending our anxiety levels though the roof.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    It's proportional! There are more old people than there are on regular benefits. And you know why we give old people pensions? Because a majority have worked their arses off. You are wrong about welfare spending. In entirety it is almost 698 billion. It makes up 10% maximum. Also ESA is not the only benefits, overall we spend over 40 billion in benefits. Stop drawing up stats which support your argument and ignoring the truth.
    As has been pointed out you were provided with per capita (proportional) figures but chose to ignore them.

    You made assertions as if they were fact about the amount of money paid out in ESA, you were provided facts that utterly disprove your assertions and your answer is to say "Stop drawing up stats which support your argument and ignoring the truth."

    Do you have any clue how stupid that statement is?

    You are basically saying, stop showing me evidence that I am wrong and ill informed, it doesn't sit well with my twisted views.

    Even when confronted with evidence that about as black and whitely as possible shows you are completely wrong you still delude yourself and make more rambling points and wildly generalise with no basis in evidence. You do not want to know the truth, you want to stick to a twisted argument that is hurtful to the most vulnerable in society.

    Try and realise, the tories are only in power because there are enough puppets in the country who will believe catchy soundbites that pit the lower rungs on the class ladder against one another. All the time this just deflects attention away from their own shenanigans of scratching each others backs on the summit and laughing down at the rest of us.

    I have read two news stories this week where the tories are more than happy to push the boundries of the law to bring cuts on the less well off. (Trying to ban anyone entering the UK from claiming benefits for 4 years & trying to reverse a supreme court decision on the 'Bedroom Tax'). Sandwiched inbetween these stories was the tory defense of the Google tax bill. The tories would basically prefer one rich company to get megabucks rather than see thousands of people struggle less.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Yes but how many on ESA actually end up working? Many stay on it all their lives without holding down a job. It's alright having it, but it isn't working.
    Looks like you ran off.

    Any Tories dare to take his place?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Looks like you ran off.

    Any Tories dare to take his place?
    Actually, some of us have jobs and lives outside student forums.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.