EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 392
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10846 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
For what its worth, the current omnishambles outweighs any influence I think labour could exert on the situation. Inflation would continue to creep up, interest rates would eventually follow. More tax is a necessity regardless of political party affiliation to maintain public services. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:40 sc-darkness wrote: What's up with Manchester? Last time I visited it it had a lot of beggars. It seems like a serious problem from what I saw. There is a huge amount of homeless people in Manchester. Its something I have spoken about on here before because until you see it for yourself it could sound unrealistic. Its a serious problem. Our local police have decided to combat it by taking all their stuff off them and kicking them out of the city center. Drug laws have made this much worse because homemade spice is everywhere. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/spice-nightmare-manchester-city-centre-12870520 There's been a combination of policy coming from the tory government that is obviously responsible for this. Homeless people are viewed unfavourably by the population, so decent provisions for them were the first thing to go after the cuts started and we are really seeing the effects of this now. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
I think all of us pay quite a lot of council tax, yet streets could be improved. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9275 Posts
| ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
901 Posts
On October 03 2017 08:44 kollin wrote: I'd imagine years of bad housing policy + punitive benefits cuts are the cause. I don't see how taking benefits away from another vulnerable group in society would help. I am sorry kollin, but i quite strongly disagree "Some people make *a lot* of children and they don't work, yet they still receive benefits" =/= "vulnerable group in society" I am somewhat touchy on the subject, as both me and my wife work and have to pay fortune for nursery, also can only dream about holidays together as we barely manage cover all the half terms, summer holidays and such, with all our holidays combined. Yet for some bizarre reason unemployed parents get help with childcare cost (actually they get it one year earlier only, unless there are some other - sry not well versed in benefits). That always baffles me - they not work so government in its wisdom decided that they need help with childcare cost. probably to have proper rest from...?? Probably will get flamed, but tbh I dont believe in benefits other than sickness/disability. Other than that maybe some emergency/contribution based (eg company went bankrupt etc.) | ||
|
Razyda
901 Posts
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-01/u-k-should-defy-demands-for-irish-brexit-border-lawmaker-says So apparently leaving EU is not enough, lets leave the WTO too. This is from a guy who according to some:" is touted as a favourite in the summer months to replace the Prime Minister in Downing Street" As days go by I am more and more convinced that lord Buckethead was the best choice. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On October 03 2017 11:06 Razyda wrote: I am sorry kollin, but i quite strongly disagree "Some people make *a lot* of children and they don't work, yet they still receive benefits" =/= "vulnerable group in society" I am somewhat touchy on the subject, as both me and my wife work and have to pay fortune for nursery, also can only dream about holidays together as we barely manage cover all the half terms, summer holidays and such, with all our holidays combined. Yet for some bizarre reason unemployed parents get help with childcare cost (actually they get it one year earlier only, unless there are some other - sry not well versed in benefits). That always baffles me - they not work so government in its wisdom decided that they need help with childcare cost. probably to have proper rest from...?? Probably will get flamed, but tbh I dont believe in benefits other than sickness/disability. Other than that maybe some emergency/contribution based (eg company went bankrupt etc.) The children are the vulnerable ones. Would you rather leave them in poverty? Government in its wisdom has decided that making sure kids don't live in destitution is more important than their moral crusade over work. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On October 03 2017 11:06 Razyda wrote: I am sorry kollin, but i quite strongly disagree "Some people make *a lot* of children and they don't work, yet they still receive benefits" =/= "vulnerable group in society" I am somewhat touchy on the subject, as both me and my wife work and have to pay fortune for nursery, also can only dream about holidays together as we barely manage cover all the half terms, summer holidays and such, with all our holidays combined. Yet for some bizarre reason unemployed parents get help with childcare cost (actually they get it one year earlier only, unless there are some other - sry not well versed in benefits). That always baffles me - they not work so government in its wisdom decided that they need help with childcare cost. probably to have proper rest from...?? Probably will get flamed, but tbh I dont believe in benefits other than sickness/disability. Other than that maybe some emergency/contribution based (eg company went bankrupt etc.) 1) Children are the vulnerable group. And with irresponsible parents are probably doubly so. 2) Given how the UK population is stagnating (and worse if you discount immigration) then anyone have "a lot" of children is a good thing. In the long run, if these kids are well looked after, society will benefit. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On October 03 2017 16:24 Deleuze wrote: 1) Children are the vulnerable group. And with irresponsible parents are probably doubly so. 2) Given how the UK population is stagnating (and worse if you discount immigration) then anyone have "a lot" of children is a good thing. In the long run, if these kids are well looked after, society will benefit. Let's say for the sake of argument 3 children is reasonable. Let's say there's a law that goes into effect on October 2018, which is 12 months and would be fine because no woman is pregnant now and will give birth then. Obviously. Now with this law if you make 4th child or more, you won't get ANY benefits for the new children if you're unemployed. I think that's fair because being a lazy bastard who makes more children at the expense of government isn't nice, is it? What kind of example do you give to these kids? Also, why would such people deserve benefits more than some poor beggar in the streets? At the cost of 4th child in terms of tax payer's money, you can sponsor one beggar in the streets to start a new life. That doesn't have to be lifetime support. It has to be time limited and it has to ensure they get a job. That's the point of welfare programs. It's to give them just enough help so they can sort themselves out. It's not to support leeches. You've forgotten the idea behind welfare programs. Also, no one says never have 4th kid. Obviously, if you want more, you have to earn more. It's part of your responsibility. It's not government's problem. It's not tax payer's problem either. If you disagree, please come up with constructive criticism. Civilised debate as what is expected here. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10846 Posts
Not supporting the families would most likely also result in more beggars. Solve problems with too many homeless/beggars with the homeless/beggars, not by screwing a child over for being born into a poor family. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28738 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28738 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10846 Posts
You can argue like Drone but good luck with idiot parents that won't comply. The outrage would be absurd. | ||
| ||
