I1L2T3 Posted July 6, 2013 Author Share Posted July 6, 2013 How is it incorrect to say that the unemployed lack self-reliance? Read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Labours re-election seemed nailed on but I'm not too sure now, the wheels do seem to be falling off; I foresee another Lib-Con coalition. Really, I can't foresee anyone voting Libdem ever again. What would be the point? A "promise" in their manifesto means nothing, a "pledge" means nothing, hanging on the Tories coattails of power whilst pretending to stop the Tories from being really evil but for all their whittering and pretense the NHS reforms still went though despite the LibDem conference voting against it. I'm sure Nick is looking forward to a lovely job with a bank or hedge fund. Because he'll never be PM and his party will never be trusted again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 ....I'm sure Nick is looking forward to a lovely job with a bank or hedge fund. Because he'll never be PM and his party will never be trusted again. He could always cross the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Really, I can't foresee anyone voting Libdem ever again. What would be the point? A "promise" in their manifesto means nothing, a "pledge" means nothing, hanging on the Tories coattails of power whilst pretending to stop the Tories from being really evil but for all their whittering and pretense the NHS reforms still went though despite the LibDem conference voting against it. I'm sure Nick is looking forward to a lovely job with a bank or hedge fund. Because he'll never be PM and his party will never be trusted again. I think it could be likely that a Lab/Con (led by, not sure which) coalition will be next. ---------- Post added 07-07-2013 at 02:32 ---------- There's too many Oxbridge special advisor chinless wonders at the top of all the main parties at the moment especially Labour. Someone the other day mentioned, then questioned: that the CotE only had crap qualifications and poor working history, so how can he be running the economy? What do people want? - Of course you weren't saying it, but the opposite (since that's how people think and speak) is an uneducated fat person. But, what would you want? A good hard working man/woman who is in touch with reality? The ideology. That would now need a definition (assuming that might have been a response by someone, so I can remove that as an option unless a definition is included). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Labour work hard to be just as nasty as the Tories, because that's what they think voters want Heaven forbid that any political party should listen to its voters. Why can't Ed Miliband accept that Labour voters want welfare reform? ...a quarter of Labour’s support agree that poverty is the result of social injustice, and only a third want welfare benefits to be increased. Remarkably, almost half agree with the notion that if welfare benefits were cut, it would help people to stand on their own two feet. Perhaps most striking of all is Labour voters’ perceptions of the reasons behind child poverty. A third are minded to blame ‘society’ — and a whacking 63 per cent are more inclined to blame the children’s parents. These views are changing not because of Tory propaganda but because of what people on council estates see with their own eyes. The welfare state is now fostering the very worklessness it was designed to eradicate. Workers on low pay are well aware that their neighbours on welfare do not face similar constraints. In some parts of Britain’s inner-city estates, parents have watched in horror as their children leave school and sign on to welfare as a lifestyle choice. The fault lies not with the teenagers, but the system. This is more than just a waste of money; it is an unforgiveable waste of human potential. LINK [The Spectator 18 May 2013] I foresee another Lib-Con coalition. Unlikely. Coalitions are pretty rare affairs. A "promise" in their manifesto means nothing, a "pledge" means nothing Awww, sweet. They're acting just like a grown-up political party. I did like this bit in the article: The Independent’s Owen Jones disagreed; the MP became flustered and snapped: “I won’t take lectures from you – you come from the posh part of Stockport.” Well, erm... case closed really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 How is it incorrect to say that the unemployed lack self-reliance? is it correct to say that the unemployed lack self-reliance? ---------- Post added 07-07-2013 at 08:34 ---------- Heaven forbid that any political party should listen to its voters. a fair number of voters wanted the bankers punished, but they don't seem to have listened to them there do they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 ... Lose your job and the next day you need to be signing up with kleeneze ...[/b] and as Vague Boy said in the thread about Ballot-rigging: According to UNITE's own figures, only 37.5% of their members vote Labour. [LINK] Interestingly... [LINK] It's just like the 1970s all over again. Fortunately, the UK does have some immigrants who are prepared to stand on their own feet, start small (and in some cases, not so small) businesses, make money and provide jobs. The UK also has emigrants and I doubt that any of those are the sort of people who sit around on their arses complaining that the government (which as everybody knows, owes them a living) isn't providing that living. How many of those who get totally frustrated with the attitudes in the UK and who decide to leave are entrepreneurs, business men,highly-skilled and well-trained individuals? - The sort of people who attract major employers; the sort of people who provide jobs? There may be a long queue of people waiting to sign up for Kleeneze - particularly if all the rest have left. We had a thread on this forum (last active on 03 July) titled: "Would you sell your employment rights for shares?" The responses were depressingly predictable: The owner of the company (perhaps an hypothetical company?) was offering to GIVE the company to the employees. (The shareholders are the owners of the company and they benefit from the profits (just as they do when the lefties on this forum are moaning about 'the greedy bosses'.) In this case, the workers were going to be the owners of the company. The existing owners did add one (perfectly reasonable) proviso: "If you are going to own the company, you have to undertake to work a bit harder than usual to make the company successful make yourselves wealthier. The Forum response? "Oh, we'd like the same money as the bosses - but we're not prepared to put ourselves out to get it." If you were running that company, would you not be tempted to move it to a place where you could find workers who were prepared to work with you? - As opposed to workers who wanted everything for nothing? Yes, the country may be about to return to 70's values ...but companies are more ready to move than they were in the 70's and they have a far greater choice of production sites in other EU countries than they did then. Ask Ford why they no longer manufacture vehicles in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share Posted July 7, 2013 and as Vague Boy said in the thread about Ballot-rigging: Fortunately, the UK does have some immigrants who are prepared to stand on their own feet, start small (and in some cases, not so small) businesses, make money and provide jobs. The UK also has emigrants and I doubt that any of those are the sort of people who sit around on their arses complaining that the government (which as everybody knows, owes them a living) isn't providing that living. How many of those who get totally frustrated with the attitudes in the UK and who decide to leave are entrepreneurs, business men,highly-skilled and well-trained individuals? - The sort of people who attract major employers; the sort of people who provide jobs? There may be a long queue of people waiting to sign up for Kleeneze - particularly if all the rest have left. We had a thread on this forum (last active on 03 July) titled: "Would you sell your employment rights for shares?" The responses were depressingly predictable: The owner of the company (perhaps an hypothetical company?) was offering to GIVE the company to the employees. (The shareholders are the owners of the company and they benefit from the profits (just as they do when the lefties on this forum are moaning about 'the greedy bosses'.) In this case, the workers were going to be the owners of the company. The existing owners did add one (perfectly reasonable) proviso: "If you are going to own the company, you have to undertake to work a bit harder than usual to make the company successful make yourselves wealthier. The Forum response? "Oh, we'd like the same money as the bosses - but we're not prepared to put ourselves out to get it." If you were running that company, would you not be tempted to move it to a place where you could find workers who were prepared to work with you? - As opposed to workers who wanted everything for nothing? Yes, the country may be about to return to 70's values ...but companies are more ready to move than they were in the 70's and they have a far greater choice of production sites in other EU countries than they did then. Ask Ford why they no longer manufacture vehicles in the UK. Did you read the article? Your post just looks like a tenuous attempt to support current government policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Did you read the article? Your post just looks like a tenuous attempt to support current government policy. Just like all these type of threads, they are purely done to troll whilst at the same time trying to discredit and persuade public opinion. These types of thread are always pro to a common poliitical party or anti to what they call the supposed opposition. They never fault faults with the poliitical party they align themselves too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Just like all these type of threads, they are purely done to troll whilst at the same time trying to discredit and persuade public opinion. These types of thread are always pro to a common poliitical party or anti to what they call the supposed opposition. They never fault faults with the poliitical party they align themselves too. So which party do you think that applies to in the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.