DeeTillEhDeh Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 Whit? Starving children, cronyism and gross corruption is in no way comparable to paying NHS staff an increase.You're wasting your time responding to his pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 1 minute ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Absolutely correct. Im a Tory and believe in self determination with welfare in place to deal with hardship when it occurs and only as a temporary respite. Certainly don’t agree with subsidising all and sundry. Does Westminster subsidise Scotland? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 3 minutes ago, Big Rider said: Does Westminster subsidise Scotland? According to GERS, per SG figures, it does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 The problem with the "akin to starving children" argument is that they literally did actually vote to withhold meals (twice) from hungry children during the holidays a matter of months ago. It's not akin to anything, they did exactly that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 25 minutes ago, ayrmad said: There are some amount glasshouses getting stoned on here today. Whilst some of the Tory policies are indeed reprehensible, so are the consequences of Nicola's vote buying decisions, just that folk can't see the wood for the trees, there's barely a worthwhile option on the ballot papers in a few weeks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 2 minutes ago, madwullie said: The problem with the "akin to starving children" argument is that they literally did actually vote to withhold meals (twice) from hungry children during the holidays a matter of months ago. It's not akin to anything, they did exactly that. You've got to admit there's of course different ways of framing that discussion, as @Dawson Park Boyhas done so. Also this wasn't something that was near any manifestos it was a reaction decision in a pandemic that I didn't support at the time and definitely didn't support when voting for Conservatives. You can of course say I am stupid or naive to not predict they would do such things and there is probably some validity in that. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Stormzy said: You've got to admit there's of course different ways of framing that discussion, as @Dawson Park Boyhas done so. Also this wasn't something that was near any manifestos it was a reaction decision in a pandemic that I didn't support at the time and definitely didn't support when voting for Conservatives. You can of course say I am stupid or naive to not predict they would do such things and there is probably some validity in that. Fair enough. Hopefully your writing hand remembers next time you find yourself in a voting booth ☺ Edit: Dawson's framing of the discussion was to make an irrelevant point then ignore my response btw ah no hang on, he's found a new depth to plumb Edited March 28, 2021 by madwullie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 25 minutes ago, madwullie said: The problem with the "akin to starving children" argument is that they literally did actually vote to withhold meals (twice) from hungry children during the holidays a matter of months ago. It's not akin to anything, they did exactly that. IMO, a correct decision. It is the job of parents to feed their children , not the state. If the parents don’t have enough money due to Covid related problems, then benefits policy needs to be looked at. This was the principle espoused by Beveridge who founded the welfare state. Benefits were to meet short term problems but not to be a permanent state of affairs. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: IMO, a correct decision. It is the job of parents to feed their children , not the state. If the parents don’t have enough money due to Covid related problems, then benefits policy needs to be looked at. This was the principle espoused by Beveridge who founded the welfare state. Benefits were to meet short term problems but not to be a permanent state of affairs. I'm all for having a wide range of views, but this is absolutely abhorrent. Govt stops someone from working. Then refuses to help feed the children made hungry by the govt's decision to stop the parent from working. Parent is unable to claim sufficient benefits which incidentally have been gutted by the current govt's (and preceding) own policies. The decision is in from @Dawson Park Boy - the right thing was done imo. Govt blameless. You beyond detestable c**t. Edited March 28, 2021 by madwullie 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 I note that Stormzy hasn't mentioned the list vote, where he can safely vote Labour and hope to get an elected representative. I assume that this is because he will be giving his list vote to the Tories - he would have mentioned that he was going to split his vote if that was his intention. Obviously, no-one will believe any subsequent claims he makes regarding voting Labour on the list now this fact has been pointed out to him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 14 minutes ago, madwullie said: I'm all for having a wide range of views, but this is absolutely abhorrent. Govt stops someone from working. Then refuses to help feed the children made hungry by the govt's decision to stop the parent from working. Parent is unable to claim sufficient benefits which incidentally have been gutted by the current govt's (and preceding) own policies. The decision is in from @Dawson Park Boy - the right thing was done imo. Govt blameless. You beyond detestable c**t. Anyone unable to work should be getting furlough from his employer (80% with less NI and tax and xpenses). If self employed there is a scheme to pay based on last tax return. Obviously, some folks will fall through the safety net and there is universal credit available. Which category of person are you specifically highlighting who are unable to feed their kids? -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: I note that Stormzy hasn't mentioned the list vote, where he can safely vote Labour and hope to get an elected representative. I assume that this is because he will be giving his list vote to the Tories - he would have mentioned that he was going to split his vote if that was his intention. Obviously, no-one will believe any subsequent claims he makes regarding voting Labour on the list now this fact has been pointed out to him. I was considering it, especially after Pato's post but I've checked the numbers and it's actually a lot closer than I realised, I've not closed my mind on the decision and there's plenty time left. Even when the SNP weren't so prominent my area has never had good representation from Labour. I think they got under 200 votes in the local council by election last week. I actually couldn't care less if people were to disbelieve who I eventually vote for, it's pretty inconsequential to me. A lot of people have clearly made their minds up of me anyway and frequently claim things that aren't based in reality. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Absolutely correct. Im a Tory and believe in self determination with welfare in place to deal with hardship when it occurs and only as a temporary respite. Certainly don’t agree with subsidising all and sundry. I had typed out a bit of a personal post about my experiences of being made homeless when my dad became unwell thanks to the tories ‘self determinationist’ views and my own utter contempt for the absolute scum who infest their party and influence their policies but there’s not really any point. You sound like a bit of a c**t. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 20 minutes ago, madwullie said: I'm all for having a wide range of views, but this is absolutely abhorrent. Govt stops someone from working. Then refuses to help feed the children made hungry by the govt's decision to stop the parent from working. Parent is unable to claim sufficient benefits which incidentally have been gutted by the current govt's (and preceding) own policies. The decision is in from @Dawson Park Boy - the right thing was done imo. Govt blameless. You beyond detestable c**t. This is where I would say I agree with his overall point about welfare and it's purpose but as you correctly point out the government stopped people from working so it was definitely an unusual circumstance and certainly the wrong move but if I'm correct they eventually backtracked? If only Marcus Rashford would move up to the Borders in an effort to combat the Indy supporters, he'd get my vote. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 3 minutes ago, Stormzy said: This is where I would say I agree with his overall point about welfare and it's purpose but as you correctly point out the government stopped people from working so it was definitely an unusual circumstance and certainly the wrong move but if I'm correct they eventually backtracked? If only Marcus Rashford would move up to the Borders in an effort to combat the Indy supporters, he'd get my vote. They did backtrack due to Rashford, (twice iirc) but not before a message had gone out from CCHQ for tory MPs with a twitter presence to back the govt's decision to stop free meals. Some cracking screenshots taken that day I'd imagine. An absolute shitshow made all the worse due to the ultimate victims of their policy, and the relatively small cost to make a massively positive change, that almost everyone, even tories, could get behind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 7 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: I had typed out a bit of a personal post about my experiences of being made homeless when my dad became unwell thanks to the tories ‘self determinationist’ views and my own utter contempt for the absolute scum who infest their party and influence their policies but there’s not really any point. You sound like a bit of a c**t. And not the nice bit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 11 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Anyone unable to work should be getting furlough from his employer (80% with less NI and tax and xpenses). If self employed there is a scheme to pay based on last tax return. Obviously, some folks will fall through the safety net and there is universal credit available. Which category of person are you specifically highlighting who are unable to feed their kids? I'm not even bothering engaging with you. It's been made clear what happened over a number of posts. It was abundantly clear at the time too given it was headline news for days. You're either too bloody minded to care, or too uncaring to give a shit. Or a deliberate troll. Whichever it is you can away and jump on the first bus to f**k. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 3 minutes ago, madwullie said: They did backtrack due to Rashford, (twice iirc) but not before a message had gone out from CCHQ for tory MPs with a twitter presence to back the govt's decision to stop free meals. Some cracking screenshots taken that day I'd imagine. An absolute shitshow made all the worse due to the ultimate victims of their policy, and the relatively small cost to make a massively positive change, that almost everyone, even tories, could get behind. IIRC they backtracked once and then knighted him hoping it would shut him up and then had to backtrack again. I'd say a fair assesment would be that Bojo is a populist and he doesn't seem to mind backtracking at all depending on which way the political winds are blowing, the party says that they listened and correctly changed their minds whilst the opposition seems to sit back and hope the electorate are smart enough to clock what's going on, unfortunately for Keir this sensible approach could be his downfall as the electorate are extremely fickle. I think similar may happen with the nurses question and I do think they've really missed the mark by going with the minimum 2%, if the issue keeps getting brought up Boris will unashamedly realise the error of his ways and go above 2% which makes Labour look like Torylites. Keir really needs to up his game, he's still got time though. (I know that went mad off topic so apologies) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 Just now, madwullie said: And not the nice bit Look, please all calm down and just read what I’m saying, I totally agree with the welfare state when it is required to meet specific needs. I just don’t agree with getting the state rather than the parents to feed children. If a parent has a problem, then the welfare system should kick in to enable that parent to feed the child. Its a long time since I’ve had a school dinner but as I recall, they were poor. As such I would much rather parents do the feeding rather than a dinner lady. Where does such a policy end up ? Meals coming to houses by deliveroo paid for by government Complete nonsense. A compliant citizenry fed and clothed by the state. The conservatives were correct and should have stuck with their principles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted March 28, 2021 Share Posted March 28, 2021 1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said: According to GERS, per SG figures, it does. Do you think it does? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.