The Underclass

[RedJedi]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j69/dougiedonnelly/CameronHoodie_468x545.jpg

Im pissed off paying tax to give money to SCUM like this. They are just parasites, living of the rest of us.

They need a fuckin good whipping, if i ever had a kid turn out like this id drown the little bastard.


( and i dont mean Cameron )



A teenager who made a gun gesture at Conservative leader David Cameron was still in defiant mood a day later.

Ryan Florence, 17, of Benchill, Manchester, spoke of how he smoked cannabis every day and had spent several months behind bars for a string of violent thefts

The youngster, dressed in a black tracksuit and hoodie, was photographed on Thursday making a shooting action with his hand behind the back of Mr Cameron, who was visiting Manchester to speak about youth gun culture.

Florence, who was out walking his Staffordshire Bull Terrier with three friends on Friday, said: "I'm not bothered about the stories in the papers about me. They can say what they want about me."

He said he was a member of a gang named the Benchill Mad Dogs.

The teenager claimed the area was rife with cheap firearms which could be bought for as little as £30.

He said: "Guns are a way of life around here. Everyone has got them. There are shootings every week here but they don't get heard about because no one wants to grass."

He added: "Drugs are everywhere here. I smoke weed every day and all my friends do as well. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you don't get caught.

"I have tried sniff (cocaine) a few times but I didn't think much of it so I don't do it anymore."

Florence refused to answer questions about whether he had ever fired a gun but said he did not own one.

He added: "Lots of my friends have got them. They need them for protection and in case it kicks off and there's trouble. If we get rival gangs coming round here causing problems then they need to be sorted out.

"You can get a gun for about thirty or forty quid. They're not very good. They are just blank firers which have been drilled through. If you pay a bit more, about 50 quid, you can get something better; all ready to go."

Florence, who sports an electronic tag on his ankle, said he had been in custody three times for multiple charges including burglary, street robbery, stealing cars and breaching parole conditions.

[Neil Young]

It's a tabloid story. You never heard of kids playing up for the camera?

And you should mean Cameron. The man's a dirty, upper class t**t, just like Tories always have been.

[Red Chilli]

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".

That was B-Liar's manifesto. I'd say he's failed to deliver on either of these statements.
He's more interested in bombing the middle east than he is about sorting out the social deprivation and lack of opportunities in areas of this country

[Neil Young]

Cameron's a c**t and if you fall for his lies then you're a fool.

[Red Chilli]

Cameron's a c**t and if you fall for his lies then you're a fool.

Was that comment aimed at me?

[Neil Young]

No, not really, mate. Sorry it came across like that. :handshake:

It was a general comment about how the Tories are supposed to have changed. Inevitably they haven't as is starting to become clear with each new policy detail.

It would be foolish to forget how they were before (and you know I'm no fan of new Labour either).

[animal magic]

Cameron's a c**t and if you fall for his lies then you're a fool.

not a fan :haha:

[Neil Young]

not a fan :haha:
:haha:

Another public schoolboy/Oxbridge graduate as prime minister - yup that's really what we need. :shake:

[Red_Polo]

Another public schoolboy/Oxbridge graduate as prime minister - yup that's really what we need. :shake:

As much as I agree with you about Cameron and the Tories, that's just inverted snobbery :shake:

[animal magic]

:haha:

Another public schoolboy/Oxbridge graduate as prime minister - yup that's really what we need. :shake:

yep your right about that

[Neil Young]

As much as I agree with you about Cameron and the Tories, that's just inverted snobbery :shake:
No it isn't. It's a class thing.

[Red Chilli]

No, not really, mate. Sorry it came across like that. :handshake:

It was a general comment about how the Tories are supposed to have changed. Inevitably they haven't as is starting to become clear with each new policy detail.

It would be foolish to forget how they were before (and you know I'm no fan of new Labour either).

I don't think the major political parties ever really change, the most significant one I suppose was B-liar's new labour party. He basically abandoned most of the major principles of the party in order to make them unbeatable in the elections. In all this time he's been in power have things really improved? I'd say the last 10 years would probably have panned out more or less the same had the Tories been in power.
I'm no fan of "Dave" however, I'm more embarrassed about the fact I believed in B-liar.

[Neil Young]

I don't think the major political parties ever really change, the most significant one I suppose was B-liar's new labour party. He basically abandoned most of the major principles of the party in order to make them unbeatable in the elections. In all this time he's been in power have things really improved? I'd say the last 10 years would probably have panned out more or less the same had the Tories been in power.
I'm no fan of "Dave" however, I'm more embarrassed about the fact I believed in B-liar.
:handshake:

So we need to make doubly sure we don't fall for the lies of a Blair clone.

I disagree about the great imponderable of where we'd be with the Tories in power. I really think it would be worse just because they would have had to throw the occasional bone to their right wing just like Labour have done for the left (e.g. minimum wage).

[Red Chilli]

:handshake:

So we need to make doubly sure we don't fall for the lies of a Blair clone.

I disagree about the great imponderable of where we'd be with the Tories in power. I really think it would be worse just because they would have had to throw the occasional bone to their right wing just like Labour have done for the left (e.g. minimum wage).

What is the alternative? Brown or Cameron, just as bad as each other IMO.

[Red_Polo]

No it isn't. It's a class thing.

Exactly, so it's inverted snobbery - a disdain of people purely based on their class. You can't judge people solely on the basis of their belonging to a certain social grouping. It's prejudice.

[Red Chilli]

I agree with the occasional "right wing bone"; on the big issues though: The war, the NHS, university fees,the economy, the worsening of crime, full prisons, the pension debacle; the decisions and direction on all those issues have all been exactly what I would have expected from Tories, sadly.

[Red Chilli]

Is it just my eyes or does anyone else think that that kid is a rubbish aim? There is no way he's pointing his finger at Cameron :D

[animal magic]

whats with his other hand :haha:

[Red Chilli]

I don't know why we don't just enlist all these criminals running around with guns. Get them to Iraq and let them see what gun warfare is really about :D

[Shaggy]

:haha:

Another public schoolboy/Oxbridge graduate as prime minister - yup that's really what we need. :shake:

He likes Radiohead and The Smiths though, so it's okay. :crackoff:

[Shaggy]

Is it just my eyes or does anyone else think that that kid is a rubbish aim? There is no way he's pointing his finger at Cameron :D

They interviewed that little tool on the local news earlier. It was cringeworthy. He was asked about guns: "Well mon, it's Gunchestoh innit, it's not Manchestoh anymore...". :shake:

[animal magic]

They interviewed that little tool on the local news earlier. It was cringeworthy. He was asked about guns: "Well mon, it's Gunchestoh innit, it's not Manchestoh anymore...". :shake:

manc twat

[RedJedi]

It's a tabloid story. You never heard of kids playing up for the camera?

And you should mean Cameron. The man's a dirty, upper class t**t, just like Tories always have been.

It might well be a tabloid story, but i only have to look out my back window to see it for real. Dogs ( Staffs ) barking all feckin day. Pricks riding up and down one way streets on motorbikes, same people never done a days work in the 6 years ive lived round here. Goin out in the middle of the summer with a feckin hood up. Playin loud music all bleedin day. It might be tabloid for some but it real for a lot of us.

[RedJedi]

Id vote for anyone who would sort all these low lifes out. Only thing is there is no one out there to do it.

[glynner]

There is ONE man who could do it..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/glynnr/slaughter.jpg

Vote Sgt. Slaughter for PM

[Mumsafan]

Florence :haha:

[Neil Young]

Exactly, so it's inverted snobbery - a disdain of people purely based on their class. You can't judge people solely on the basis of their belonging to a certain social grouping. It's prejudice.
I'm not doing that. It's based on the fact that he has done nothing to make me believe he has any idea how most of us live our lives.

[Red_Polo]

I'm not doing that. It's based on the fact that he has done nothing to make me believe he has any idea how most of us live our lives.

You didn't make it about Cameron as an individual though did you? If you had then I would've agreed. You said 'another public schoolboy...yup that's really what we need', as though they're all the same when it comes to politics. Which is a bit silly really.

[Neil Young]

You didn't make it about Cameron as an individual though did you? If you had then I would've agreed. You said 'another public schoolboy...yup that's really what we need', as though they're all the same when it comes to politics. Which is a bit silly really.
They're not all the same that's true. ;) :handshake:

[Helios Creed]

Do remember when punks used to get beaten up by 20-30 year old thugs cus they looked different? How about a new craze, "Twat a Hoodie"? Walk up behind one of the the gormless wastes of space and smack him on the back of the head and say "that's from my gran". There must be bigger and more violent people that this lot around, why don't they sort them out? Why do neighbourhoods become terrorised by these spotty streaks of piss - society is letting us down, it used to regulate dickheads like this.

[Helios Creed]

I don't think the major political parties ever really change, the most significant one I suppose was B-liar's new labour party. He basically abandoned most of the major principles of the party in order to make them unbeatable in the elections. In all this time he's been in power have things really improved? I'd say the last 10 years would probably have panned out more or less the same had the Tories been in power.
I'm no fan of "Dave" however, I'm more embarrassed about the fact I believed in B-liar.

The tories wouldn't have even tried to improve things for the majority of us. They just look after the rich minority and hope that enough others are snobbish/greedy enough to still vote for them in the hope they get to join the elite. Labour may have failed and abandoned their principles, but at least they tried and had principles to lose.

[alunevans]

:handshake:

So we need to make doubly sure we don't fall for the lies of a Blair clone.

I disagree about the great imponderable of where we'd be with the Tories in power. I really think it would be worse just because they would have had to throw the occasional bone to their right wing just like Labour have done for the left (e.g. minimum wage).

Thats one way of looking at it, but governments supposedly of the Left do tend to get away with more because the people have more trust in them as guardians of their welfare.

So, for instance, Clinton spelled the end of "welfare as we know it" as he put it. Similarly there's been countless things that New Labour have done that have prompted only muted protest compared to what would have happened if the Tories had tried it.

Ultimately, progressives who'd fight the Tories will be disarmed by similarly right wing measures from a Labour government because they are prepared to offer "their" government too much trust.

[Neil Young]

Thats one way of looking at it, but governments supposedly of the Left do tend to get away with more because the people have more trust in them as guardians of their welfare.

So, for instance, Clinton spelled the end of "welfare as we know it" as he put it. Similarly there's been countless things that New Labour have done that have prompted only muted protest compared to what would have happened if the Tories had tried it.

Ultimately, progressives who'd fight the Tories will be disarmed by similarly right wing measures from a Labour government because they are prepared to offer "their" government too much trust.
I used to think that but I've found myself starting to change my mind (not that that's necessarily right - I'm just looking at it differently).

I think that your approach (which I understand and to some extent am still drawn to) tends to underplay the excesses of the Tories, strange though that may sound.

A current example would be what I read in one of the broadsheets today (I think it was The Guardian), the gulf between Cameron's stigmatising of one-parent families (a typical Tory trick) and the Labour Government's split on how to respond. The fact that some, led inevitably by the Prime Minister, want to adopt the Tories' clothes on this is shameful - the fact that others appear uncomfortable with it and are sticking up for good parents in non-traditional family units at least gives some hope. This split is notably absent among Tories ranks, indicating that the Labour can emulate the worst aspects of the Tories but must inevitably lack the consistency over time since their coalition is, overall, less right-wing.

[alunevans]

Understood. And likewise I know where you're coming from too.

But in terms of policy I think the leadership tends still to win.

And wouldn't the centre Left and the unions been more aggressively opposed on issues like PFI, or the real nastiness of Labour's focus on immigration and deportation (even Michael Howard was to the left of Labour on one aspect of this ie taking asylum seekers kids into care after making them forcibly destitute).

My Dad for instance is a good Labour man and has been all his life. He is totally disarmed when Labour does hideous things. He doesn't speak out on things that, if the Tories did them, he'd be furious about.

I agree that Labour does tend to be more split on these issues, but it is also an increasingly socially authoritarian party and I think increasingly its "membership that matters" are part of that.

And as we speak, Labour are planning to attack the child benefit of single parents. The fact that they do so with understanding words instead of condemnatory ones only disarms those on the left and centre left who'd fight on it otherwise.

I remember one of Kinnocks better speeches as Labour leader where he warned that if Britain elected the Tories don't dare to get old, don't dare to be poor, don't dare to be ill.

I've a friend who has worked all her life for the past 20 odd years and never once claimed from the state. She has cancer and can no longer work and has been told that being free from stress is a key factor in her beating it.

She rents from a private landlord and despite being in the middle of her contract has been granted £312 in housing benefit and told to find somewhere else to live.

This means that

a) she is hundreds of pounds worth of debt with her current landlord as the HB have refused to honour the contract she was in
b) she is effectively forced out of her home at a time when no stress was prescribed
c) she has to find new accomodation that is just £312 per month - virtually impossible as I've found
d) she will also need to find 2x her rent up front to move in
e) the overwhelming majority of private rented housing say NO DSS making it even more impossible

Kinnock's words still ring in my ears given that this is what has happened to someone who "dares to be ill" after a prolonged period of Labour government with an impregnable majority.

The truth is, in my view, that they used their majority to enact policy that the unions and the left would have fought like crazy about had they been Conservatives. And they have done little to help those who dare to be old, dare to be poor, or dare to be ill.

Working people assume too much that Labour does things in their interest, and so, like my Dad, give them a frightening benefit of the doubt.

But I genuinely don't believe that Labour does act in the interests of working people. The sooner working people view Labour with the same hostility and mistrust that they view the Tories, the better.

I used to think that but I've found myself starting to change my mind (not that that's necessarily right - I'm just looking at it differently).

I think that your approach (which I understand and to some extent am still drawn to) tends to underplay the excesses of the Tories, strange though that may sound.

A current example would be what I read in one of the broadsheets today (I think it was The Guardian), the gulf between Cameron's stigmatising of one-parent families (a typical Tory trick) and the Labour Government's split on how to respond. The fact that some, led inevitably by the Prime Minister, want to adopt the Tories' clothes on this is shameful - the fact that others appear uncomfortable with it and are sticking up for good parents in non-traditional family units at least gives some hope. This split is notably absent among Tories ranks, indicating that the Labour can emulate the worst aspects of the Tories but must inevitably lack the consistency over time since their coalition is, overall, less right-wing.

[The Glove]

Understood. And likewise I know where you're coming from too.

But in terms of policy I think the leadership tends still to win.

And wouldn't the centre Left and the unions been more aggressively opposed on issues like PFI, or the real nastiness of Labour's focus on immigration and deportation (even Michael Howard was to the left of Labour on one aspect of this ie taking asylum seekers kids into care after making them forcibly destitute).

My Dad for instance is a good Labour man and has been all his life. He is totally disarmed when Labour does hideous things. He doesn't speak out on things that, if the Tories did them, he'd be furious about.

I agree that Labour does tend to be more split on these issues, but it is also an increasingly socially authoritarian party and I think increasingly its "membership that matters" are part of that.

And as we speak, Labour are planning to attack the child benefit of single parents. The fact that they do so with understanding words instead of condemnatory ones only disarms those on the left and centre left who'd fight on it otherwise.

I remember one of Kinnocks better speeches as Labour leader where he warned that if Britain elected the Tories don't dare to get old, don't dare to be poor, don't dare to be ill.

I've a friend who has worked all her life for the past 20 odd years and never once claimed from the state. She has cancer and can no longer work and has been told that being free from stress is a key factor in her beating it.

She rents from a private landlord and despite being in the middle of her contract has been granted £312 in housing benefit and told to find somewhere else to live.

This means that

a) she is hundreds of pounds worth of debt with her current landlord as the HB have refused to honour the contract she was in
b) she is effectively forced out of her home at a time when no stress was prescribed
c) she has to find new accomodation that is just £312 per month - virtually impossible as I've found
d) she will also need to find 2x her rent up front to move in
e) the overwhelming majority of private rented housing say NO DSS making it even more impossible

Kinnock's words still ring in my ears given that this is what has happened to someone who "dares to be ill" after a prolonged period of Labour government with an impregnable majority.

The truth is, in my view, that they used their majority to enact policy that the unions and the left would have fought like crazy about had they been Conservatives. And they have done little to help those who dare to be old, dare to be poor, or dare to be ill.

Working people assume too much that Labour does things in their interest, and so, like my Dad, give them a frightening benefit of the doubt.

But I genuinely don't believe that Labour does act in the interests of working people. The sooner working people view Labour with the same hostility and mistrust that they view the Tories, the better.




:respect: :respect: :respect:

[Red_Polo]

Thats one way of looking at it, but governments supposedly of the Left do tend to get away with more because the people have more trust in them as guardians of their welfare.

So, for instance, Clinton spelled the end of "welfare as we know it" as he put it. Similarly there's been countless things that New Labour have done that have prompted only muted protest compared to what would have happened if the Tories had tried it.

Ultimately, progressives who'd fight the Tories will be disarmed by similarly right wing measures from a Labour government because they are prepared to offer "their" government too much trust.

Totally agree with you Alun. Unfortunately some people are too obsessed by labels to the point where it distorts their analysis of governments/political parties.

[Neil Young]

Understood. And likewise I know where you're coming from too.

But in terms of policy I think the leadership tends still to win.

And wouldn't the centre Left and the unions been more aggressively opposed on issues like PFI, or the real nastiness of Labour's focus on immigration and deportation (even Michael Howard was to the left of Labour on one aspect of this ie taking asylum seekers kids into care after making them forcibly destitute).

My Dad for instance is a good Labour man and has been all his life. He is totally disarmed when Labour does hideous things. He doesn't speak out on things that, if the Tories did them, he'd be furious about.

I agree that Labour does tend to be more split on these issues, but it is also an increasingly socially authoritarian party and I think increasingly its "membership that matters" are part of that.

And as we speak, Labour are planning to attack the child benefit of single parents. The fact that they do so with understanding words instead of condemnatory ones only disarms those on the left and centre left who'd fight on it otherwise.

I remember one of Kinnocks better speeches as Labour leader where he warned that if Britain elected the Tories don't dare to get old, don't dare to be poor, don't dare to be ill.

I've a friend who has worked all her life for the past 20 odd years and never once claimed from the state. She has cancer and can no longer work and has been told that being free from stress is a key factor in her beating it.

She rents from a private landlord and despite being in the middle of her contract has been granted £312 in housing benefit and told to find somewhere else to live.

This means that

a) she is hundreds of pounds worth of debt with her current landlord as the HB have refused to honour the contract she was in
b) she is effectively forced out of her home at a time when no stress was prescribed
c) she has to find new accomodation that is just £312 per month - virtually impossible as I've found
d) she will also need to find 2x her rent up front to move in
e) the overwhelming majority of private rented housing say NO DSS making it even more impossible

Kinnock's words still ring in my ears given that this is what has happened to someone who "dares to be ill" after a prolonged period of Labour government with an impregnable majority.

The truth is, in my view, that they used their majority to enact policy that the unions and the left would have fought like crazy about had they been Conservatives. And they have done little to help those who dare to be old, dare to be poor, or dare to be ill.

Working people assume too much that Labour does things in their interest, and so, like my Dad, give them a frightening benefit of the doubt.

But I genuinely don't believe that Labour does act in the interests of working people. The sooner working people view Labour with the same hostility and mistrust that they view the Tories, the better.
Good post.

I certainly agree that Labour fails to live up to its principles and that the majority are often badly let down by it. I also agree that Labour gets away with some things that people would find harder to stomach fromt he Tories (although this works the other way around - imagine The Daily Mail's reaction if Labour had introduced, say, the pound coin - "devaluing our once proud nation's heritage" or some other bollocks no doubt).

I do think it would be a mistake to believe that there is NO difference between them and so while I want neither I don't want one of them even more than the other.

Of course the trouble then is one is tempted to vote for the lesser of the two evils and that, as I've learned from voting for New Labour in '97 and '01, is a big mistake. I won't be voting Labour again (at least not without a radical change by them), I'm going to support a party closer to my ideals. In that we definitely agree and ultimately at election time that's what, er, counts.

:handshake:

[Joe Le Toff]

Understood. And likewise I know where you're coming from too.

But in terms of policy I think the leadership tends still to win.

And wouldn't the centre Left and the unions been more aggressively opposed on issues like PFI, or the real nastiness of Labour's focus on immigration and deportation (even Michael Howard was to the left of Labour on one aspect of this ie taking asylum seekers kids into care after making them forcibly destitute).

My Dad for instance is a good Labour man and has been all his life. He is totally disarmed when Labour does hideous things. He doesn't speak out on things that, if the Tories did them, he'd be furious about.

I agree that Labour does tend to be more split on these issues, but it is also an increasingly socially authoritarian party and I think increasingly its "membership that matters" are part of that.

And as we speak, Labour are planning to attack the child benefit of single parents. The fact that they do so with understanding words instead of condemnatory ones only disarms those on the left and centre left who'd fight on it otherwise.

I remember one of Kinnocks better speeches as Labour leader where he warned that if Britain elected the Tories don't dare to get old, don't dare to be poor, don't dare to be ill.

I've a friend who has worked all her life for the past 20 odd years and never once claimed from the state. She has cancer and can no longer work and has been told that being free from stress is a key factor in her beating it.

She rents from a private landlord and despite being in the middle of her contract has been granted £312 in housing benefit and told to find somewhere else to live.

This means that

a) she is hundreds of pounds worth of debt with her current landlord as the HB have refused to honour the contract she was in
b) she is effectively forced out of her home at a time when no stress was prescribed
c) she has to find new accomodation that is just £312 per month - virtually impossible as I've found
d) she will also need to find 2x her rent up front to move in
e) the overwhelming majority of private rented housing say NO DSS making it even more impossible

Kinnock's words still ring in my ears given that this is what has happened to someone who "dares to be ill" after a prolonged period of Labour government with an impregnable majority.

The truth is, in my view, that they used their majority to enact policy that the unions and the left would have fought like crazy about had they been Conservatives. And they have done little to help those who dare to be old, dare to be poor, or dare to be ill.

Working people assume too much that Labour does things in their interest, and so, like my Dad, give them a frightening benefit of the doubt.

But I genuinely don't believe that Labour does act in the interests of working people. The sooner working people view Labour with the same hostility and mistrust that they view the Tories, the better.

That is one of the best posts ive read on this site :handshake:
My family too, are strong and traditional Labour voters and you cant say a bad word against them to my parents, your comment about working people giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming all they do is in their interest ticks all the boxes in my family.

[alunevans]

I won't be voting Labour again (at least not without a radical change by them), I'm going to support a party closer to my ideals.


Who are you planning to support Neil

[Helios Creed]

Of course the trouble then is one is tempted to vote for the lesser of the two evils and that, as I've learned from voting for New Labour in '97 and '01, is a big mistake. I won't be voting Labour again (at least not without a radical change by them), I'm going to support a party closer to my ideals. In that we definitely agree and ultimately at election time that's what, er, counts.

:handshake:

I understand your sentiments, but I think I'd rather compromise my ideals and vote for the lesser of two evils rather than the ideal party, if a vote for them is wasted and a totally unacceptable party get in. I couldn't live with having preserved my integrity, but having 4/5 years of those bastards again.

Also I'm sure hardened left-wingers have gone through this morale quandary since the Labour party was formed - they've always felt that the mainstream party didn't live up to their ideology and that voting for it was a compromise, even when they couldn't get in power. The choice always was, be true to your ideals or get the Tories out, and that pill may be more bitter than ever, but I think I'll have to force myself to swallow it.

[Red Chilli]

Understood. And likewise I know where you're coming from too.

But in terms of policy I think the leadership tends still to win.

And wouldn't the centre Left and the unions been more aggressively opposed on issues like PFI, or the real nastiness of Labour's focus on immigration and deportation (even Michael Howard was to the left of Labour on one aspect of this ie taking asylum seekers kids into care after making them forcibly destitute).

My Dad for instance is a good Labour man and has been all his life. He is totally disarmed when Labour does hideous things. He doesn't speak out on things that, if the Tories did them, he'd be furious about.

I agree that Labour does tend to be more split on these issues, but it is also an increasingly socially authoritarian party and I think increasingly its "membership that matters" are part of that.

And as we speak, Labour are planning to attack the child benefit of single parents. The fact that they do so with understanding words instead of condemnatory ones only disarms those on the left and centre left who'd fight on it otherwise.

I remember one of Kinnocks better speeches as Labour leader where he warned that if Britain elected the Tories don't dare to get old, don't dare to be poor, don't dare to be ill.

I've a friend who has worked all her life for the past 20 odd years and never once claimed from the state. She has cancer and can no longer work and has been told that being free from stress is a key factor in her beating it.

She rents from a private landlord and despite being in the middle of her contract has been granted £312 in housing benefit and told to find somewhere else to live.

This means that

a) she is hundreds of pounds worth of debt with her current landlord as the HB have refused to honour the contract she was in
b) she is effectively forced out of her home at a time when no stress was prescribed
c) she has to find new accomodation that is just £312 per month - virtually impossible as I've found
d) she will also need to find 2x her rent up front to move in
e) the overwhelming majority of private rented housing say NO DSS making it even more impossible

Kinnock's words still ring in my ears given that this is what has happened to someone who "dares to be ill" after a prolonged period of Labour government with an impregnable majority.

The truth is, in my view, that they used their majority to enact policy that the unions and the left would have fought like crazy about had they been Conservatives. And they have done little to help those who dare to be old, dare to be poor, or dare to be ill.

Working people assume too much that Labour does things in their interest, and so, like my Dad, give them a frightening benefit of the doubt.

But I genuinely don't believe that Labour does act in the interests of working people. The sooner working people view Labour with the same hostility and mistrust that they view the Tories, the better.


Great post :respect: :respect:

Blair has got away with far too much in the name of "New Labour"

[Kronenburg1892]

But I genuinely don't believe that Labour does act in the interests of working people. The sooner working people view Labour with the same hostility and mistrust that they view the Tories, the better.

Excellent post. So will you be voting Liberal?

[alunevans]

Excellent post. So will you be voting Liberal?

Nope.

I'll probably be voting "none of the above" by writing it on my ballot paper.

[Kronenburg1892]

How about proportional representation?

[alunevans]

How about proportional representation?

That's another question I suppose, although I'm broadly supportive. The important thing though is to refuse to vote for anyone that you don't support, even if that means writing "none of the above" on your ballot paper, an option that should be there anyhow.

[Kronenburg1892]

Should be a party.

But I doubt anyone would get to agree.

[Neil Young]

Who are you planning to support Neil
I voted Green last time on the grounds they're reasonably sound on some of the biggest issues (global warming, war against Iraq, globalisation, etc). Of course they're far from perfect themselves but then aren't we all?

As for next time, it depends what parties are around. There's not much choice round here so "none of the above" might well be the choice.

And you?

[Neil Young]

I understand your sentiments, but I think I'd rather compromise my ideals and vote for the lesser of two evils rather than the ideal party, if a vote for them is wasted and a totally unacceptable party get in. I couldn't live with having preserved my integrity, but having 4/5 years of those bastards again.

Also I'm sure hardened left-wingers have gone through this morale quandary since the Labour party was formed - they've always felt that the mainstream party didn't live up to their ideology and that voting for it was a compromise, even when they couldn't get in power. The choice always was, be true to your ideals or get the Tories out, and that pill may be more bitter than ever, but I think I'll have to force myself to swallow it.
I used to think like that. At the last election I really was thrashing about in the dilemma on who to vote for - something closer to my ideals or should I vote Labour since my MP was anti-war...

Eventually I realised it's just one vote, it's not going to make any difference and the only course of action I felt comfortable with was to follow my principles as best as I could.

[Helios Creed]

Eventually I realised it's just one vote, it's not going to make any difference

Have we learned nothing from The Simpsons? :)

[Neil Young]

Have we learned nothing from The Simpsons? :)
:haha:

I thought of that when I posted. :handshake:

[alunevans]

I voted Green last time on the grounds they're reasonably sound on some of the biggest issues (global warming, war against Iraq, globalisation, etc). Of course they're far from perfect themselves but then aren't we all?

As for next time, it depends what parties are around. There's not much choice round here so "none of the above" might well be the choice.

And you?

Last time I voted "none of the above" and the time before I voted Socialist Labour. We'll see who stands. If the Labour candidate were the proverbial hatstand though he'd still win where I am.

But even if my vote were to have more of an impact, I'd still vote 'none of the above' unless a party that was at least close to my own world view was standing.

There seems little point in having a democracy and then nonetheless voting for one of three parties who have virtually nothing in common with what you actually believe in.

[Neil Young]

I can't believe I actually agree with that total knob Peter Hitchens but...

Cameron student photo is banned

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_politics_enl_1172779106/img/laun.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_politics_enl_1172779106/img/1.jpg

News media have been prevented from showing a photo of David Cameron with fellow Oxford dining club members.

The image of the Tory leader, which shows him in about 1986 dressed in the uniform of the elite Bullingdon Club, has appeared in several newspapers.

It is thought Labour was planning to use the picture on an election poster.

But the photographers who have withdrawn it say they acted for commercial reasons and have had no contact with the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives have also denied asking the Oxford-based company Gillman and Soame, who own the copyright, to withdraw the picture.

The photographers told BBC Two's Newsnight they had taken a "policy decision," after the picture appeared in national newspapers, not to allow any school photographs they own to be published.

Notorious

BBC Two's Newsnight has commissioned a painting of the scene shown in the Bullingdon picture.

The Bullingdon Club is famed for its hard drinking and bad behaviour, and Mr Cameron has always refused to talk about it.

The club's members have become notorious over the years for vandalising restaurants and trashing students' rooms.

Former members include Alan Clark, who gained fame as a political diarist after serving as a junior minister in Margaret Thatcher's government.

Andrew Gimson, author of The Rise of Boris Johnson, said: "I don't think an evening would have ended without a restaurant being trashed and being paid for in full, very often in cash.

"A night in the cells would be regarded as being par for a Buller man and so would debagging anyone who really attracted the irritation of the Buller men."

'Aristocratic'

In the photo Mr Cameron and several other Bullingdon members, including the young Boris Johnson, now shadow higher education minister, pose in their £1,000 uniforms of blue ties, tails and biscuit-coloured waistcoats.

The Labour Party is thought to have been planning to use the image to attack Mr Cameron at the next general election.

Commentators, including former Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley, have said it is potentially far more embarrassing to the Tory leader than the recent story about him taking cannabis at Eton.

Newspaper columnist Peter Hitchens told Newsnight: "I think it tells us something about David Cameron that he doesn't much want us to know, that he is not the ordinary bloke that he claims to be.

"That he is actually much grander and much more aristocratic than he has made out."

But Tony Blair also has an embarrassing photo from his student days.

The photo of the prime minister from the 1970s shows him with fellow members of an Oxford university dining club.

It has been published many times before in a cropped format - but Newsnight has shown that the full photo shows him making what appears to be a rude gesture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_politics_enl_1172779548/img/laun.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_politics_enl_1172779548/img/1.jpg


link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6409757.stm)

[Red_Polo]

He is a fraud, no doubt. Cycle to work with a car following behind with your briefcase etc...

I don't buy any of this shit about any politician claiming to understand the average person. Does anyone remember how David Davis continually milked the whole 'when I was growing up on a council estate' thing during the leadership contest? He said it at every opportunity, it was hilarious! Neither of them ended up actually talking about policy! What a pile of horseshit!

[RedJedi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_politics_enl_1172779548/img/1.jpg


link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6409757.stm)



Did that one second in on the bottom right grow up to be a pirate ?

[Red_Polo]

Did that one second in on the bottom right grow up to be a pirate ?

No, but he did recover from the red-eye, which Blair apologised for causing :handshake:

[Neil Young]

Blair apologised for something?

[Red_Polo]

Blair apologised for something?

:haha:

[Deano]

So, in essence you are all saying politicians are theiving, lying money grabbing twats who do not give a flying fuck about any of us and we would be best off staying in the pub during election time.

Suits me

[Helios Creed]

So, in essence you are all saying politicians are theiving, lying money grabbing twats who do not give a flying fuck about any of us and we would be best off staying in the pub during election time.

Suits me


But some start with good intentions and become etc. etc. and some knew they were thieving, lying money grabbing twats who did not give a flying fuck about any of us when they went into politics.

[Neil Young]

But some start with good intentions and become etc. etc. and some knew they were thieving, lying money grabbing twats who did not give a flying fuck about any of us when they went into politics.
I am amazed at the gall of some of these people who, frankly, are born into a milieu where they assume it is their right to become our leaders. These are "the great and the good", a self-perpetuating elite, the foundations of which are in the public schools and which are honed at Oxbridge (where a few others from different social backgrounds are recruited).

I'm reading a history of Britain in the 1950s right now and it is a little surprising just how few surnames there are within what was then called the Establishment. What is truly shocking is that so many of these surnames are still familiar now because their descendants have deigned to lead us or been appointed to top jobs - Otto Clarke (father of Charles), Reginald Edward Manningham-Buller, later 1st Viscount Dilhorne (father of Eliza, head of MI5), etc.

They really do think it's their birthright. :shake:

[Neil Young]

Re-reading what I just wrote, I really believe it's the "overclass" we should be fighting, not a relatively small number of working-class teenagers who actually need our help and support in spite of their anti-social behaviour.

[Deano]

I am amazed at the gall of some of these people who, frankly, are born into a milieu where they assume it is their right to become our leaders. These are "the great and the good", a self-perpetuating elite, the foundations of which are in the public schools and which are honed at Oxbridge (where a few others from different social backgrounds are recruited).

They really do think it's their birthright. :shake:

Good point - But also the underclass get to the higher echolons of power also, and they are exactly the same as the silver spoon brigade you have quoted (see John P). Power is a drug, and people will lie, beg, steal and ride roughshod over those who put them there.

As long as grass is green and the sky is blue there will always be a class system. All political roads lead to a corrupt society and even through revolution or even evolution that will not change once someone is chosen as a leader. This has been proven throughout the world.

[Neil Young]

Sure, but I don't think the odd "oik" being allowed to get close to the top cancels out the others. Besides, he was sidelined before he could get any real power, he's got a token job and, although an intelligent enough bloke in some ways, gets lampooned because he can't talk in that smooth, Oxbridge way (among other reasons perhaps).

Does there have to be a class system? Perhaps. However, it is not an immutable thing, it is a dynamic system and we need to be on our guard against its iniquities at all times. Otherwise we'll all get screwed by the same old people, acting in the same old interests. It really doesn't have to be like that, at least for a while, between the revolution* and the rot setting in.

* For want of a better word.

[disco]

Hang on, is that partly because not many 'oiks' actually try and get into power.

I'm sure the first genuinely working class MP (if that's a) possible and b) not an oxymoron) would get lots of votes ;)

[Deano]

Oik - Made me laugh !!! - But a very apt description

I cannot see how a classless system would exist ! - It has been tried, take the USSR - Everyone in the party was above reproach - They screwed everyone else. (extreme view I know).
If you abolished capital wealth and accumaltion of wealth - maybe - but as a selfish race - who would work for nothing apart for self appreciation ?

[Neil Young]

Hang on, is that partly because not many 'oiks' actually try and get into power.

I'm sure the first genuinely working class MP (if that's a) possible and b) not an oxymoron) would get lots of votes ;)
I trust you realise that I was using the language of the public schoolboy to make my point, not because I see him that way. :eyebrow:

Of course some do. But really, it's about expectations - few ordinary kids (working-class and middle-class - within state schools) are brought up to believe it's their job to run the country.

And of course it's different in certain places, especially Scotland and Wales (particularly with the "Scottish mafia" and what used to be known as the "Taffia" :D) and it has been different in the Labour Party although, at the highest level, not as much as one would think.

It's also about the expectations of the electorate and those expectations are shaped to quite some degree by media and other sources, most of which are in the hands of other members of that ruling elite.

Believe me, I've lived in Islington, I've dined in the House of Lords and Granita, I've met Lembit Opik... :crackoff:

[disco]

As an aside, the chief bod at KPMG was interviewed by the Sunday Times or something and said 'he has no idea how or why the accountancy profession (well, auditing particularly) 'works', but it just does and has done for a very long time - you can't really change it'

I suspect the same goes for politics, or in particular running the country (rather than 'leading it') - I reckon if the most idealistic person somehow got into power, he'd realise pretty quickly that it's virtually impossible to completely change things - they just 'work' (ish). You have to mould things over time, or try and make small wins.

Or, putting it more succinctly, it doesn't really matter who wins the election ;)

[Deano]

Hang on, is that partly because not many 'oiks' actually try and get into power.

I'm sure the first genuinely working class MP (if that's a) possible and b) not an oxymoron) would get lots of votes ;)


No there are quite a few "oiks" in power. My local MP,(Labour) declares himself as working class but has never done a days work in his life, stood for councillor in the Locals and described himself as devoting himself to the people. Then, this nugget decides hmmm I'll run for parliment and the fuckwit manages to get in. This pillock then decides, hmmmmm can't be having these peopel asking me questions about what I do so I'll set my sugery between 9.41 and 9.43 in the eighth Wednesday of the next quarter. Basically - F**k you and all your brethen I'm all right.

But the daft thing is - People will still vote for him as he is "labour"

[disco]

No there are quite a few "oiks" in power. My local MP,(Labour) declares himself as working class but has never done a days work in his life, stood for councillor in the Locals and described himself as devoting himself to the people. Then, this nugget decides hmmm I'll run for parliment and the fuckwit manages to get in. This pillock then decides, hmmmmm can't be having these peopel asking me questions about what I do so I'll set my sugery between 9.41 and 9.43 in the eighth Wednesday of the next quarter. Basically - F**k you and all your brethen I'm all right.

But the daft thing is - People will still vote for him as he is "labour"

:haha:

A good and a bad example :handshake:

[Deano]

As an aside, the chief bod at KPMG was interviewed by the Sunday Times or something and said 'he has no idea how or why the accountancy profession (well, auditing particularly) 'works', but it just does and has done for a very long time - you can't really change it'

;)

There was me thinking I understood being an accountant - Sod it I'll become an Oik or a oxeymoron and run for parliment !!!

[Deano]

:haha:

A good and a bad example :handshake:

And on the doorstep of Manchester

[disco]

There was me thinking I understood being an accountant - Sod it I'll become an Oik or a oxeymoron and run for parliment !!!

:haha: You'd think he'd have an idea to.

I think he meant 'it's a system that works, and no-one really knows why' :handshake:

[Helios Creed]

No there are quite a few "oiks" in power. My local MP,(Labour) declares himself as working class but has never done a days work in his life, stood for councillor in the Locals and described himself as devoting himself to the people. Then, this nugget decides hmmm I'll run for parliment and the fuckwit manages to get in. This pillock then decides, hmmmmm can't be having these peopel asking me questions about what I do so I'll set my sugery between 9.41 and 9.43 in the eighth Wednesday of the next quarter. Basically - F**k you and all your brethen I'm all right.

But the daft thing is - People will still vote for him as he is "labour"

I'm sensing that he doesn't have your full support... :haha: