How long do you think the coalition will last?

First topic message reminder :

I want people's opinion of how long they think this coalition will last. ?

Great post Tosh though you'll no doubt be castigated for posting it. When did it become the taxpayers responsibility to support those that have no wish to support themselves or their family?

Left wing socialism is damaging altruism, much like closed shop unions damaged collective bargaining, taking valid principles to unfair extremes devalues and distorts the intended spirit and turns people against worthy causes.

There has never been a time in human history where no personal or social responsibility existed, there is a reason for this, cooperation and reciporacation are essential ingredients of fairness and progress. It is from this base we can afford altruism, one cannot help others if one cannot help oneself.

Stop killing altruism.

Great post Tosh

Absolutely. Better researched than anything Steve Walker or Shirina post, full of facts with links to their sources, offering a balanced view free from bigotry and prejudice. Exactly what we've come to expect from right-wingers.

Wow, and another one - it must be my birthday! Who needs facts?

(I must find a teacher and ask him or her what "reciporacation" means.)

When did it become the taxpayers responsibility to support those that have no wish to support themselves or their family?.

I do not blame the people for their irresponsibility, it is only human nature to take advantage of a system that in effect encourages and promotes irresponsibility. Much like the rich tax dodgers, its not their fault the system panders to greedy self interest at the expense of social responsibility.

I blame ideologues who take worthwhile principles and ruin them with excess, altruism is to support those who suffer from an unfortunate circumstance, altruism is not supposed to create the unfortunate circumstance and create long suffering.

Once again Ivan you miss the point, surely a forum is somewhere that you put forward YOUR point of view rather than mirror somebody else's. Off the top of my head I believe it's called free speech and thought, but hey I could be wrong?

Ivan,

It is patently obvious my spelling does not bother me one jot, if it did I would correct it.

If it doesn't bother me then it shouldn't bother you, its my spelling after all.

Ivan,

The plain fact is you and your ilk are dinosaurs, the meteor of globalisation arrived on this planet decades ago and you will soon be extinct, the clever socialists have grown feathers and have flown to the middle ground where the rest of life is. I suggest you do likewise before you become a fossil in a museum for obsolete causes.

What kind of altruism Tosh?

The kind displayed at / by Sunlight - Wirral, Titus Salt - Saltaire, or Gannochy Village in Perth, built by Bell's Whisky for workers, or the homes in Craigie, Perth built by John Dewar Whisky distillers and bottlers?

Is it building libraries, town halls etc that is on your mind, as all the above have tax breaks, most other kinds of "Giving" do not!

AND was it not your handbag hero, who ended the tied cottage in this country?

Absolutely. Better researched than anything Steve Walker or Shirina post, full of facts with links to their sources, offering a balanced view free from bigotry and prejudice. Exactly what we've come to expect from right-wingers..

Please stop quoting Shirina, she lives in a Darwinian jungle where state altruism is almost a criminal offence.

My experience is my research and it is linked to my logical brain, I live in Scotland which is more dependant on the state than anywhere except Ulster, I can recite chapter and verse every scam going from personal knowledge, I do not need to read the Daily Mail.

I have a golfing buddy who just moved into his brand new 5 bedroom detached council villa valued at 250k, he earns 22k per year and his wife just gave birth to their 6th child. He is wandering around the golf club showing us photos of his new home, I pointed out that those who responsibly had fewer kids paid for him to have as many as he wants.

Do you really think this is fair ?

What kind of altruism Tosh?

The kind that requires personal sacrifice by the majority to support the unfortunate minority through temporaty difficulties, not the kind of altruism that offers an altenative lifestyle at the expense of the real needy.

I do no not want my taxes back but I do not want them wasted, I want my taxes to be spent helping genuine needy people, all the money saved from the scammers can be ploughed back into the system, its not as if I benefit from any of this but the needy will.

"The kind that requires personal sacrifice by the majority to support the unfortunate minority through temporaty difficulties"


We bin doin that since the 50s! (supposedly!)

Welfare and NHS!

It's your heroes who are dessimating it - and I agree, Brown and Cherry Blair put the cork on the bottle!

Welfare and NHS!

The welfare state was built on the premise of contributions( reciprocation), it was not created for someone to leave home, have kids and contribute nothing.

Its simple logic, if we all acted irresponsibly then we go bust, if Labour had tackled this problem when there was money and jobs, welfare cuts would be unnecessary, their lack of political will has damaged the real needy.

Please stop quoting Shirina, she lives in a Darwinian jungle where state altruism is almost a criminal offence......My experience is my research.....I have a golfing buddy who earns 22k per year and his wife just gave birth to their 6th child. He is wandering around the golf club showing us photos of his new home, I pointed out that those who responsibly had fewer kids paid for him to have as many as he wants. Do you really think this is fair?

Tosh. I mentioned Shirina and Steve Walker because they’re the most intelligent people on this forum and respect the rest of us enough to give us postings of substance – supported by evidence – which are always well worth reading. If you’d been paying attention instead of massaging your own ego, you’d realise that Shirina is very unhappy with her “Darwinian jungle” and may get out of it if the USA is plunged into a Romney nightmare next week.

To say your “experience is your research” is a cop-out because you’re too lazy to look up the truth, preferring to peddle the sort of bigotry you hear from loudmouths in pubs after a few too many beverages. I’m sure if one of our religious friends used "experience" as an argument for justifying their beliefs, you’d be on them like a ton of bricks.

Yet another anecdote, this time about a “golfing buddy”. You seem to be assuming that children are bad for all us taxpayers, but they’re not. Gordon Sharp, head of the Continuous Mortality Investigations Unit, argues a higher birth rate means the nation's growing elderly population will get greater support from working-age people in 30 years’ time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9634127/One-in-four-British-babies-born-to-foreign-mothers.html

The birth rate is increasing, but women are still having far fewer children than in the 1960s, when there was a peak of 2.93 children per woman in 1964. The low point was 1.63 in 2001, but thankfully it’s been increasing ever since. Who’s going to go to work and pay tax to pay your state retirement pension if there aren’t enough children now?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/668801-uk-birth-rate-at-36-year-high

The hypocrite Iain Duncan Smith has been living off the taxpayer for almost all his working life. He’s a millionaire, he’s got four children and he claimed child benefit for all of them. If we don’t pay child benefit for all children, it will be the children who suffer and start on the cycle of deprivation which will no doubt ensure their potential in life is never fulfilled. That’s what I call unfair.

What next? Compulsory sterilisation for all unemployed people with two children? We’re drifting more and more into fascism as each week goes by. As someone remarked on Twitter: “This government is like carbon monoxide poisoning. Most people won't even realise what's being done to them until it's too late.”

Writing for ‘The Daily Telegraph’, Daniel Knowles concluded: “Thanks to this baby boom, our long term fiscal prospects are less bleak than they otherwise would be – more taxpayers means less tax per payer.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100150427/has-george-osborne-set-off-a-demographic-time-bomb/

Tosh

If anyone under 25 has left home and had kids with no means of support then they are a parasite or a retard, if parents want to throw out their kids before they can support themselves then they can support them not me.

You're absolutely right, Tosh. In past decades people used to have children, set up home, etc at a ridiculously young age...remember the bad old days when people would get married and have kids when still in their 20's - do we really want a return to people having the same opportunities as that these days. I think not.

It seems much more sensible that they only do this when they can afford it - mebbes by the time they're 40yrs old people can consider having a family of their own.

It's a good thing that we simultaneously value bricks and mortar as 'property' and 'investment' so highly, and yet no longer places enough value the notion of bricks and mortar as a 'home' as to make 'homes' affordable.

“This government is like carbon monoxide poisoning. Most people won't even realise what's being done to them until it's too late.”

NEVER HAS A MORE TRUER WORD BEEN SPOKEN ( or written down even )

I happen to think that the British people have lost their appetite for protest, speaking out or for voicing their opposition to what is going on; Long gone are the days of the anti poll tax marches and the workers and unions demonstrating against injustice.

THe only positive point is that the Conservatives and their yellow friends are continuing to lag way behind in the opinion polls, but again I cannot help but feel that the 10 point gap should be 15 to 20 points.

To say your “experience is your research” is a cop-out because you’re too lazy to look up the truth, preferring to peddle the sort of bigotry you hear from loudmouths in pubs after a few too many beverages. I’m sure if one of our religious friends used "experience" as an argument for justifying their beliefs, you’d be on them like a ton of bricks.

Let me educate you on the difference between religion and politics, subjective experience is not evidence of physical existence, politics is not claiming physical existence.

Truth is a term used in philosophy, and we prove truth by logical deduction, looking up the truth and experiencing the truth are both valid as evidence. You believe someone elses logical deductions based on statistics are more truthful than my logical deductions based on personal experiences, and I believe you are comparing apples with pears.

For example:

You seem to be assuming that children are bad for all us taxpayers,

Not only is this a false representation of my position but you fail to rebut my actual position with any relevant data, none of the stats prove I am wrong.

So I will ask you again, is a system fair that enables someone to leave home, have 6 kids and get a mansion, without any means of support or without contributing to the system ?

What I cannot understand is why a rational mind cannot expand this practice to the general population and see the inevitable disastrous results.

In past decades people used to have children, set up home, etc at a ridiculously young age...remember the bad old days when people would get married and have kids when still in their 20's - do we really want a return to people having the same opportunities as that these days. I think not.

Why do you lot use strawman arguments, do you not realise it is a clear indication of an inability to rebut the point ?

So let me ask you again,, when in the bad old days were you encouraged by your parents or the state to leave home, have kids and get a council house without any means of support or without paying any contributions ?

And if this was the case, how can this be right ?

Please stick to the point.

Animals do not have more children than they can afford to feed and all social mammals contribute to the group, some on here are proposing we create sub-animals with anti-social tendencies....welcome to the underclass.

Such a lot of postings just to say, "Me First!"

Such a lot of postings just to say, "Me First!".

It only takes one small post to confirm you have comprehension problems, only a warped mind interprets " society first " as " me first ".

" Me first " is exactly the thoughts of those who contribute nothing to society but take everything from it.

It goes like this:

I want a house first, I want kids first, I want society to pay for me first and foremost.

If you cannot debate without misrepresenting my position then just surrender, it will save you further humiliation.

Tosh wrote:Animals do not have more children than they can afford to feed and all social mammals contribute to the group, some on here are proposing we create sub-animals with anti-social tendencies....welcome to the underclass.

Oh I think we know who the real animals are though........

Speaking of bloodthirsty tories: Doesn't Gideon deserve his luxuries for leading the hunt?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/oct/25/george-osborne-expensive-tastes?commentpage=2#comment-19102301

Since his economic policies have killed quite a number of ill people and those with disabilities - thus satisfying the lust of disgusting daily mail reading british taxpayers by reducing the benefits bill by a miniscule amount...............then surely Gideon deserves his luxuries. And let's not forget our hero is managing to place more distance between rich and poor by increasing inequality, killing opportunity for the less well off to better themselves, and stifling social mobility. Well done Mr. Osborne - at last someone with the vision, and drive, to steer this country in the right direction.

The dog is dead, long live the dog. Money is King.

and stifling social mobility.

Left wing socialism traps the unfortunate into generations of entitlement, under achievement and poverty.

Yet again you fail to address my point, choosing instead to wander off with a complete red herring.

God almighty you lot just cannot debate serious issues, its just hissing and booing at the Tories.

We know we become products of our environment and we know the weaknesses of human nature.

Why create an environment of personal and social irresponsibility by offering benefits without contributions as a standard practice ?

Can you really blame those who choose the easy path, and then can't get off it ?

tlttf wrote:Great post Tosh though you'll no doubt be castigated for posting it. When did it become the taxpayers responsibility to support those that have no wish to support themselves or their family?

If these Incompetent Tories had not CUT to deep and too fast there would be people still in work paying TAX & NI therefore helping the gov't to pay down the deficit, secondly if they brought in the LIVING WAGE there would be no one on low wages still needing BENEFITS to help them live with the price increases in gas electric and food going through the bloody roof. Lastly if this was a FAIR gov't there would be no argument from anybody about paying there fair amount of tax but when people that are earning upwards of £150,000 getting a 5p tax break the ones that do not need it because they have more than enough to live on, and that includes food gas and electric petrol its says a lot about a gov't that will make the very low paid for something the bloody bankers done, and the tax cut for the lower paid is nothing more than the Tories and L/Ds trying to make themselves look good with a mound of Spin thrown in for good measure the majority that it was aimed at are too low paid to pay tax anyway.

Redflag,

Your post is so irrelevant to the discussion I can only assume you are lost.

Let me refresh your memory, the discussion concerns those who contribute nothing to society but take everything they can get out of it, they existed under Labour and Labour ignored the problem.

Tosh wrote:Redflag,

Your post is so irrelevant to the discussion I can only assume you are lost.

Let me refresh your memory, the discussion concerns those who contribute nothing to society but take everything they can get out of it, they existed under Labour and Labour ignored the problem.

The only irrelevant thing is the shower of dick heads running the country, my point is if the wages where a LIVING WAGE and jobs being created the Welfare bill would not be so bloody high.

Tosh wrote:

and stifling social mobility.

Left wing socialism traps the unfortunate into generations of entitlement, under achievement and poverty.

Indeed Tosh! The Labour were only responsible for introducing comprehensive education, and the NHS......thus enabling more opportunities for the lower classes to better themselves.

I would suggest it is right-wing conservative ideology that time and again actively seeks to trap the unfortunate into a lifetime of benefits and low pay. It is Tory ideology that supports a system of under achievement and poverty, since it suits their purpose of safeguarding their privelege, power, and wealth.

So back at you with:

God almighty you just cannot debate serious issues! Take the blinkers off Tosh, and know your history before posting any more of your....tosh!

Tax loopholes for the rich! Hooray!

The Labour were only responsible for introducing comprehensive education, and the NHS......thus enabling more opportunities for the lower classes to better themselves.

More evasion, please please stick to the point. The NHS does not enable more opportunities for the lower classes to better themselves and the jury is out on whether comprehensive education is a help or a hindrance to this goal.

I would suggest it is right-wing conservative ideology that time and again actively seeks to trap the unfortunate into a lifetime of benefits and low pay. It is Tory ideology that supports a system of under achievement and poverty, since it suits their purpose of safeguarding their privelege, power, and wealth.

You may indeed suggest it but until you support your conclusion with some evidence then its just hissing and booing again. I have fully explained why the current system entices and then traps the unfortunates into poverty and entitlement and your rebuttal fails to address my case.

Nope, you people just stink at political debate.

Tax loopholes for the rich! Hooray!.

Completely irrelevant to my case, try again ?

My case is simple, should the state encourage young unemployed people to leave home and have children without any means of support ?

Yes or no ?

sickchip wrote:Tax loopholes for the rich! Hooray!

That will be the cry of Starbucks coffer Amazon and the Tory donors that have there fortunes in off shore accounts SC.

That will be the cry of Starbucks coffer Amazon and the Tory donors that have there fortunes in off shore accounts SC..

The British public should boycott those companies who pay no tax, that's what social networks are for.

my point is if the wages where a LIVING WAGE and jobs being created the Welfare bill would not be so bloody high..

What has this got to do with our discussion, why is it impossible for any of you to discuss the point at hand, we are not discussing the living wage nor unemployment nor the size of the welfare bill.

The point is should the state encourage young people to leave home and have kids without any means of support ?

looking up the truth and experiencing the truth are both valid as evidence.

Tosh. “Looking up the truth” is far more valid. Personal experience is by definition anecdotal and unlikely to show the big picture. And your remark that “I know literally hundreds of people who could work in some capacity who have been on incapacity benefit for decades” is so vague and unsubstantiated that it's worthless.

you fail to rebut my actual position with any relevant data, none of the stats prove I am wrong.

You fail to provide any verifiable data to support your tabloid-style pronouncements, and none of the statistics prove you right. It’s up to you to make your opinions credible by backing them up with evidence.

The overwhelming majority of people on benefits do not have six children. I don’t think policies for the entire nation should be made because of extreme cases like your golfing chum or the Philpott family in Derby.

Such a lot of postings just to say, "Me First!"

Maybe if you weren’t quite so blinkered and self-obsessed you would have realised that the “me first” remark by our venerable sage was directed at you and your attitude on this forum.

Left wing socialism traps the unfortunate into generations of entitlement, under achievement and poverty.

Just another of your meaningless platitudes and ridiculous generalisations that doesn’t lend itself to, or merit, serious consideration. What is that supposed to be – your experience or fact? Sounds like the sort of claptrap that some old gin-soaked colonel would spout in the Pease Pottage Conservative Club.

Please stick to the point.

Are you moderating again? If so, just remember that the ‘point’ of this thread is to speculate on how long you think this useless coalition will last.

What has this got to do with our discussion

.....about the coalition.

Tosh. Just one reply and then back on topic please, or the thread will have to be locked.

The prosecution rests.

" Venerable sage ".

Now that is funny.

I believe coalitions are here to stay, the public want consensus politics.

surely a forum is somewhere that you put forward YOUR point of view

tlttf. I agree, otherwise there would be no point in having this or any other forum. What I’m saying is that rather than reinforcing ‘Daily Mail’ prejudices, we should offer some facts to support our various points of view, so that our discussions are at least enlightened.

For example, there is a myth that hordes of families have members who haven't worked for several generations. The facts tell a different story. In households with two or more generations of working age, there are only 0.3% where neither generation has ever worked.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/mythbuster-welfare-reform/

Now we’d better get back on topic or Tosh will start moderating again….. :affraid: