Sheffield Lib Dem councillor defects to Labour on eve of party conference

[Tony]

Answer the question please. It's a very simple one.

[Keith Rich]

Answer the question please. It's a very simple one.

 

I’m not getting into a childish competition about who is going to have the last word on this. You have made your position clear.

 

You are very happy that those who have difficulty in communicating with others have their benefits taken away.

 

You now have to live with your conscience.

[hitch_1980]

I’m not getting into a childish competition about who is going to have the last word on this. You have made your position clear.

 

You are very happy that those who have difficulty in communicating with others have their benefits taken away.

 

You now have to live with your conscience.

 

You work in the community so see more than most what goes on. But if you see it from the other perspective - where people believe the benefits system lets people sponge off the system, you may see why people believe some of the cuts are needed. If you define where you believe benefits are really needed (the less fortunate), then that may help, but also say where you think that the system does not work (ie the sponges).

[Tony]

I’m not getting into a childish competition about who is going to have the last word on this. You have made your position clear.

 

You are very happy that those who have difficulty in communicating with others have their benefits taken away.

 

You now have to live with your conscience.

To avoid any competition please answer what you mean by "less fortunate" - I've asked four times now and my conscience is still as clear as my words.

 

 

 

Edit: Ah, hang on a tick, did you mean that you are the one with communication difficulties? If so please accept my apologies for not realising. I'll set out the points again for you, please note 'safety net'. I hope that makes it easier for you.

I'm sure that espadrille can speak for themselves but on the general point wouldn't that depend on whether they should be receiving benefits through the current system rather than earning for themselves and/or having some transitional or alternative arrangement?

 

Benefits aren't a right to be 'fought for'. They are a safety net.

So you are quite happy with benefits being taken away from the less fortunate?

Less fortunate in what way?

 

Less fortunate that they need a safety net? Or less fortunate that their work gene has been switched off - is that the 'right' that you refer to wildcat?

[Wildcat]

Less fortunate in what way?

 

Less fortunate that they need a safety net? Or less fortunate that their work gene has been switched off - is that the 'right' that you refer to wildcat?

 

The rights I was talking about were the UNHCR ones. The ones I was referring to with this link. It links to Article 23, and just 2 later is Article 25, which couldn't be more explicit:

 

Article 25.

 

* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Less fortunate in what way?

 

Less fortunate that they need a safety net? Or less fortunate that their work gene has been switched off - is that the 'right' that you refer to wildcat?

 

'work genes'

 

What are you on about? I think the people that get social security for the most part deserve their benefits. Indeed one of my points on threads is that the coalitions benefit cuts are unfair.

 

What has led you to think I only want social security for people who suffer from a genetic condition that makes them unemployable?

 

The point I was making was that you can't deny social security is a right.... it explicitly is one in the UNHCR list.

[Wildcat]

Actually its an area that is very fuzzy for many people and can encompass a wide range disabilities, illnesses, lazyness. So to define the area may help our benefits system.

 

The simple and practical definition is those people that employer's despite the legal incentives won't employ for a reason related to a disability. That is not to say we shouldn't make them employ the widest possible range of people, but until we successfully do then they deserve decent financial support.

 

To be making points about 'spongers' in a recession when there are 2million more unemployed people than jobs seems pretty stupid to me. Even if you could convince a 'sponger' to work there aren't jobs there for them to do. How do you justify penalising someone in that situation?

 

And none of this refutes the general point being made that the cuts planned for Incapacity benefit, DLA are particularly unfair, just like cuts for pensioners will be, or those for children.

[Tony]

The rights I was talking about were the UNHCR ones. The ones I was referring to with this link. It links to Article 23, and just 2 later is Article 25, which couldn't be more explicit:

 

 

 

 

 

'work genes'

 

What are you on about? I think the people that get social security for the most part deserve their benefits. Indeed one of my points on threads is that the coalitions benefit cuts are unfair.

 

What has led you to think I only want social security for people who suffer from a genetic condition that makes them unemployable?

 

1/10 Must do better.

 

Would you like to respond to the simple question posed rather than a different one. You are more than capable of getting your mind around the language and you do yourself no credit by inventing personal attacks where there are none to be made.

 

Or don't you actually have a relevant point to make?

 

Let's be fair wildcat, I can twirl you like this all day but there must be better things to discuss so how about you move it on? It's boring.

[Thorpist]

My big problem is with spongers living off the state who have no intention of any sort of work and spongers who live off the back of workers because they are fortunate enough to have shares in companies where they have no input.

I suppose I am not fond of a pure capitalist society

[wednesday1]

1/10 Must do better.

 

Would you like to respond to the simple question posed rather than a different one. You are more than capable of getting your mind around the language and you do yourself no credit by inventing personal attacks where there are none to be made.

 

Or don't you actually have a relevant point to make?

 

Let's be fair wildcat, I can twirl you like this all day but there must be better things to discuss so how about you move it on? It's boring.

 

 

 

Awwwwww poor old Tony, thought you'd be in Blackpool with the Lib Dems. I know of somebody with a spare ticket if you didn't get one, he lives in the S6 area.

[Guest]

Why does every thread change from it's original question to a thread about benefits?

Many on here are so obsessed with benefits and alleged scroungers, that they can't discuss anything else.

 

Try looking at the title of the thread!