Brendan

Well I believe firmly that everyone is an arsehole. Perhaps I should join the Labour Party.

Nick Clegg made a pledge that he would do something if he won the election. He couldn?t honour that pledge because he didn?t win the election. Tony Blair lied blatantly and unapologetically to students about top-up fees.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Olivia - an interesting idea. The trouble is that > I barely trust vast swathes of the population to > leave the house in the morning with their pants on > the right way round. > > I have enough trouble allowing these people to > vote let alone have direct control of fiscal > allocation. All the money would be spent on > Facebook causes and the Richard & Judy book club. Is this your formal opinion as a Party member?

Santerme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That was not the premise of Mr Ben's post....he > clearly makes the point that good old fashioned > rioting is stirring. > > Surely not? Fair enough. Busting up office buildings aside though I do find it heartening that they are taking an active interest and that being involved now is forcing them take notice and think about how things work and what sort of world they want to leave behind. Compared to the apathetic, capitulating, apolitical consumers that I went to university with it is actually quite refreshing.

Students taking an active interest in politics and how changes in the system will affect their future, is this not stirring? Perhaps they should rather accept their lot and listen to those in authority as they clearly know what is best.

Why don?t we just teach them French? Then they can move over there and live off their benefit system.

So this Duncan Smith prat is going to make the long term unemployed teach tourist how to ski? Or sleep with their wives while they?re out skiing? Are you sure Britain is ready for such a continental economy?

Can a member state of the EU ?ring fence? certain jobs for its own citizens or even incentivise employers (through tax breaks perhaps) to employ its own citizens in preference to those of other member states?

So logically you can take away these peoples? benefits if they refuse to be employed doing these jobs. Fair enough. But saying that they will only be eligible for unemployment support if they agree to work for free?

You can?t make people do unpaid work under duress. It doesn?t matter if it is designing rocket ships or picking up dog poo. I?d be interested to hear what a court has to say about it.

I'm funnier than him.

Visitor: ?Who is that?? Resident: ?Oh that chap comes from a wealthy background and went to a public school. He didn?t pay for his university education, went directly into employment and has never worried about being able to pay a bill in his life. Whenever he has had any trouble during his career someone from his lodge or one of his old boys? networks has sorted him out. He has no idea what it is like to be unemployed or have the security of his family threatened but he feels strongly that his opinions on other peoples? realities are correct. He has therefore become a politician. He wants unemployed people to be forced to do work for free.? Visitor: ?Oh a cunt.? Resident: ?Alas, yes.?

Broadly Duncan Smith?s reforms are required. Labour just didn?t have the will and inclination to make them. That?s not the point. The issue is forcing long term unemployed to do community work. You can?t force someone to work for no pay. End of. Just because the opposition support something that is morally reprehensible doesn?t make it right.

So you read the Guardian then do you?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Option One > > Visitor: "Who's that bloke there?" > > Resident: "That's Harry Smith. Poor bastard lost > his job last year, but we all club together and > pay his rent and his bills. He's a smashing > feller, to pay us back he cuts the hedges, does > the shopping for Granny Jones once a week and > takes the local kids on fishing trips. If he doesn't we take his house away." Visitor: "Ah so you support him but in exchange he has to do whatever jobs you tell him to. They used to do that quite a lot in the 18th century didn't they?? Or Option Two Visitor: "Who's that bloke there?" Resident: "That's Harry Smith. Poor bastard lost his job last year, but cuts the hedges, does the shopping for Granny Jones once a week and takes the local kids on fishing trips we pay him a fair wage and he is able to support himself from that and needs less help from the state.? Visitor: ?Oh so he has a job then.? As for your quip about the ?real? world, spare me the patronising bullshit. Do you seriously think you are possessed of powers of observation and deduction somehow more astute just because you?re able to apply your own prejudices to a predicament and come to a conclusion that you believe in without first filtering the reality through objectivity and empathy? Mamora Man?s points on the welfare state are correct but they're just the old arguments of socialism vs capitalism that anyone who grew up in the latter half of the last century, against the backdrop on the 2 super powers and their cool barney, has had droning as a constant background to any political thought or debate they have had since they first spat their dummy out. Do we really think that turning the Department of Work and Pensions into a workhouse is the solution? I know Victoriana is quite fashionable at the moment, I?m wearing a waistcoat and a silk scarf as I type, but can we leave it out of politics please.

The Daily Mash summed up my thoughts on this perfectly. "If someone doesn't want to get off their arse then by all means stop giving them money, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to poke them in the chest and tell them they have to pick up litter just because you think it's good for them. Prick." I?m just morbidly curious to find out what contrived rubbish they?ve cooked up to sell this one as even vaguely morally justifiable. (posted in the Lounge so that I can say things like fuck, cunt and motherfucker.)

http://img01.beerintheevening.com/ff/ffe89f3a0fafaeea17fcb67a2aac2316.jpg

But high earners pay more tax and therefore pay more towards the funding education.

This would be funny if it didn't ring so true: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2010/nov/11/fielding-blog-ucas-statement

Can you not strain it through a muslin and reuse it?

Right now I am benefiting from the fact that an entire host of people went to university. From the architect who designed the building I?m in to the engineers who designed our sewage systems. But perhaps you have a point as, alas I am finding it difficult to see how anyone is currently benefiting, or has ever benefited from the fact that I went to university.

I know this one... Is it, That Night in Rio?

Distortions of the facts are what they are. Mine do not now and never will make my assertions less correct. I can understand however that a criticism alluded to while making another point on a similar mater may make an adherent defensive. The fact that there is a cohesive voice singing the same lines from the same propaganda sheet defending the continued increased power and decreased accountability of an industry that has so intrinsically insinuated itself into every aspect of life does not allay suspicions.

I was actually on the streets of Westminster yesterday afternoon and saw quite a lot of the protests. To describe them as ?riots? isn?t even nearly correct. The only riotous behaviour seems to have been by a group of about 6 black clad folk who smashed a window, got their picture on all the front pages this morning and look suspiciously like the same people who smashed up the bank during the G20 protests.

The semi-hollow body? Do you still have it?