Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

I don't think UKIP have fascist ideologies though, they're far too soft. They're a part time party for party time racists.

 

I think you are falling into the trap that others fall into

 

Wanting out of Europe is currently supported by a majority of the UK population ....  

 

Is that just subliminal messaging to the good volk of VT, or have you found a recent poll that says 50.1% + want out?

Highest number I can find is two polls back in january that had 40% wanting out. Even the establishment biased BBC says it isn't 50%.

 

I've found lots of polls where more than 50% want a referendum, but that doesn't auto translate into wanting out.

 

But anyway, that's a side issue. Are UKIP racist? I don't think they are overtly deliberately conciously racist, they just like people to be and act and think like 'us'. 'Us' being that collective group of middle aged whities that read the Mail or the Sun and presume their personal prejudices are actually just plain good and right. They know they are right, because their media and their social circle agrees with them. They do not posess that self questioning constant reassessment and review thing that afflicts us deep thinking lefties.

 

These people liked the 1950's and 60's. We had pop music we could be slightly alarmed by, because hair had crept over the collar. We had people called 'the major' that wore cravats but weren't benders. Benders hadn't been invented. Europe was still bloody grateful. Leicester, Luton and Slough were full of stout working class chaps. Cutting edge technology was easier to handle, it was called Angel Delight. The Church of England was all about sensible hair, hetrosexual marriage and a general sense of well being.

 

They basically jolly well want to turn back the clock. If it could just be 1961 again we'd all be happy.

 

They like words like:

thruppence

commando

gallon

two hundred weight of potatoes

half inch pipe

fuzzywuzzy

coronation chicken

Wolseley

Austin Cambridge

Concord

Tobacco

Half ounce of shag

Spiv

Trilby

Brylcream

Rotter

 

 

 

2 days leave booked, I've had a drink

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/17/eu-referendum-poll

T'was the first one I found on google , could well be others with different figures of course but What with it also being the guardian I thought it would carry more weight with the VT leftism ( cue someone telling me that IDS also called VT left wing today in an article I didn't see )

[tonyh29]

 

Seems Mr £53 a week may have been telling a few untruths and he actually has £156 a week according to reports ... Hardly a fortune but one wonders why he decided to put out his original claim !!

 

£156 disposable cash, as in after rent, council tax, bills etc?

I didnt see the original story tbh so dont know more about how his £53 was made up but its being reported in the torygraph as Three times what he claimed on the interview so presumably they've applied the same equation to both

 

The £53 will be his allowance, for food, travel etc. The other money is no doubt to cover his rent and bills. It's fairly obvious nobody can pay all their bills AND eat on £53 a week. I can't believe anyone thought that in the first place. 

300,000 and rising people on a online petition bandwagon would appear to disagree with you

[dont_do_it_doug.]

No, you and the rags have misunderstood the challenge. 

IDS didn't when he said he could do it. 

[snowychap]

I didnt see the original story tbh so dont know more about how his £53 was made up but its being reported in the torygraph as Three times what he claimed on the interview so presumably they've applied the same equation to both

I'm not sure why the Torygraph would 'presumably' have looked at it in the same way.

Edit: It would appear that they obviously didn't because their article says:

...Mr Bennett’s challenge, delivered via John Humphrys, the presenter of the Today programme, was not all it seemed.

It later emerged that Mr Bennett, who was back on his market stall selling household goods on Tuesday, receives £232 a month in housing benefit and £200 a month in working tax credit, triple the amount of money he quoted in the challenge to Mr Duncan Smith.

It 'later emerged' that he was receiving that HB, did it? It didn't 'emerge' when the caller himself said that he had been receiving £75 per week in HB but this had been reduced to £57 per week because he his earnings from his stall had gone over a threshold and meant a decrease.

Now he may be a stooge for all you or I know but it would also appear that the Torygraph's reporting of the matter leaves something to be desired. I expect Mr Raab to be sending them a letter saying that their standards have fallen short of what he expects to read over his Ready Brek.

I think people ought to be very worried by the Tory party reaction to this story.

Are they very muddled and they still don't know which group of people they want to attack and which group they actually want to pander to?

Or are they just quite happy to randomly attack whoever seems to have got their goat up in the previous week?

Or, as I guess is much more likely, are they setting the country up for the next swathe of social security cuts which will surely have to be to in work benefits (it would be handy to amend the remit of the Low Pay Comission in order to do that, of course )?

Edited April 3, 2013 by snowychap

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

So Gideon speaks up and follows the Daily Heil on the Philpotts story.

 

What a nasty bunch of words removed. Really. Get them the **** out of Government.

[Eames]

So Gideon speaks up and follows the Daily Heil on the Philpotts story.

 

What a nasty bunch of words removed. Really. Get them the **** out of Government.

 

Not sure where you've read the report and therefore what it said. The BBC have reported that :

 

 

Chancellor George Osborne has questioned whether the state should be paying for the lifestyles of people like Mick Philpott.

Philpott has been jailed for life after being found guilty of killing six of his children in a house fire.

He has been branded a "vile product" of the benefit system by some newspapers.

Asked about such claims, Mr Osborne said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035'>Beeb

 

Not quite the same as the Heil's coverage and IMO a pretty fair question. Should the state fund a bloke with 15 kids to sit on his arse and not work?

 

I AM NOT FOR ONE MINUTE agreeing with the Government's welfare reforms since the real "victims" of the cuts are most likely to be the most vulnerable but the case above really doesn't lend the "vulnerable" tag to Mr Philpott. Yes there are some fully fledged arseholes on benefits who shouldn't be and yes we should do something about that, but I can't see that this is a sensible stick with which to beat Osbourne when you have a forest of alternatives available to you.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

He's not going to come out and say what the Heil said but it is pretty clear there is a swarm of c*nts in the political class that are out to break up the welfare system and from the papers to Downing street, their agenda is being pushed and pushed hard.

 

And while it is fine to have the debate, I don't think they should be using a one a million case to highlight the issues. As if the system is rife with 'people like that', when it really isn't.

Edited April 4, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Eames]

Fully agree with the second paragraph. (Hence the Like)

[snowychap]

Not quite the same as the Heil's coverage and IMO a pretty fair question. Should the state fund a bloke with 15 kids to sit on his arse and not work?

As well as simply looking at the question asked, you have to ask yourself why he is asking it and whether he actually wants a 'debate'. My suggestion would be talking about 'the welfare state' and 'lifestyles like that' in the same sentence (as it would appear the Beeb are reporting in that article) are the words of someone who doesn't want a debate but just wants to further the agenda that he has already laid out on numerous occasions in his speeches on social security.

Neither The Mail nor Osborne want to discuss whether people are products of their environments and the consequences for policy which acknowledgment of this may mean, they want to push the agenda that receiving benefits makes people bad people and here are some child killers to prove it (and there are 'tens of thousands in our country' - AN Wilson).

Edited April 4, 2013 by snowychap

[Jimzk5]

Yes, the benefits culture that gave this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5526823/MPs-expenses-George-Osborne-must-be-made-to-pay-say-Lib-Dems.html to George osbourne?

[blandy]

No, no Jim. It's completely different - when a "chap" such as George Osbourne "claimed up to £100,000 in mortgage interest payments for the farmhouse mortgage from the taxpayer and told the Inland Revenue that his primary residence for tax purposes was his London home. and then sold his London home for £1.48 million, making a £748,000 profit and avoided paying capital gains tax" that's not like a smelly poor person not being allowed £14 because they have a spare room.

 

You see one thing is just chaps doing what they can to get by, as chaps are entitled to do, whereas the other is clearly an undeserving scumbag.

 

Don't you see?

[Awol]

No, no Jim. It's completely different - when a "chap" such as George Osbourne "claimed up to £100,000 in mortgage interest payments for the farmhouse mortgage from the taxpayer and told the Inland Revenue that his primary residence for tax purposes was his London home. and then sold his London home for £1.48 million, making a £748,000 profit and avoided paying capital gains tax" that's not like a smelly poor person not being allowed £14 because they have a spare room.

 

You see one thing is just chaps doing what they can to get by, as chaps are entitled to do, whereas the other is clearly an undeserving scumbag.

 

Don't you see?

Was there ever a figure on how many MP's in total pulled this trick and totally avoided any kind of censure/jail/public burning?

[drat01]

Osborne really is a scum bag of the highest order. How much of the vile rhetoric that he used today was of his own thinking or was it part of the Tory party line now?

 

One small crumb of comfort was the picture of him and his official car parking in a disabled spot - can't even park a car without screwing the people

[villaajax]

[villaajax]

Wonder if he bought that Land Rover with the tax cut he's given himself.

[drat01]

Just watching the news and seeing Cameron make a complete fool of himself again re North Korea trying to say they have missiles that could hit the UK.

 

I thought it was impossible for them to get worse but every day they seem to prove me wrong

[markavfc40]

Just watching the news and seeing Cameron make a complete fool of himself again re North Korea trying to say they have missiles that could hit the UK.

 

I thought it was impossible for them to get worse but every day they seem to prove me wrong

 

The most firefighting thing is that there are people that believe the bullshit that both Osborne and Cameron have spouted today. They have tried to take advantage of the two big stories of the day and spouted a load of tripe and I can just imagine some gullible people sitting watching and nodding their heads in agreement.

[tonyh29]

I can just imagine some gullible people sitting watching and nodding their heads in agreement.

45 minutes from doom anyone ,wonder when we find a scientist dead in a field !!

[villaajax]

I can just imagine some gullible people sitting watching and nodding their heads in agreement.

45 minutes from doom anyone ,wonder when we find a scientist dead in a field !!

 

Ah, well that makes it alright then.

[markavfc40]

I can just imagine some gullible people sitting watching and nodding their heads in agreement.

45 minutes from doom anyone ,wonder when we find a scientist dead in a field !!

 

 

I agree but your back up to your old "ah but Labour did this" bollocks again though I see.