"we're all in this together"

[llcoolphil]

Very little (if anything) of the cutting is controlled by that coalition agreement. There are one or two bits of spending that the LibDems have forced the tories to accept. Which is far better than the tories having the complete free reign they'd otherwise have.

[worm]

You've completely ignored the reasons why both would be doing it.

[Peter Dow]

Video: George Osborne in the UK parliament announcing that as part of his spending review he wants to restrict housing benefit for under 35s to pay only for room rent in a shared accommodation, not for a single person's house or flat.

Well then British adults. Are we happy to become Tory rent boys and girls taking it up the arse from the Queen's ministers or are you ready for a war?

Brand New Fight The Cuts forum

Edited October 21, 2010 by Peter Dow

[Cardboard Box City]

Video: George Osborne in the UK parliament announcing that as part of his spending review he wants to restrict housing benefit for under 35s to pay only for room rent in a shared accommodation, not for a single person's house or flat.

Well then British adults. Are we happy to become Tory rent boys and girls taking it up the arse from the Queen's ministers or are you ready for a war?

Brand New Fight The Cuts forum

[Steve P]

[MrZigster]

Johann Hari in The Independant summed it up quite well for me.

It can't be coincidental that this is being done to us by three men – Cameron, Osborne, and Nick Clegg – who have never worried about a bill in their lives. On a basic level, they do not understand the effects of these decisions on real people. Remember, Cameron said before the election: "The papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background", but "she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school." Osborne is a beneficiary of a £4m trust fund he did nothing whatsoever to earn and which is stashed offshore to avoid tax. Clegg actually thought the state pension was £30 a week, a level that would kill pensioners.

These attitudes have real consequences. We're not in this together. Who isn't in it with us? Them, their friends, and their families. They were asked to pay nothing more in this CSR. On the contrary: they are being let off left, right and centre. To pluck a random example, one of the richest corporations in Britain, Vodafone, had an outstanding tax bill of £6bn – but Osborne simply cancelled it this year. If he had made them pay, he could have prevented nearly all the cuts to all the welfare recipients in Britain. You try refusing to pay your taxes next time, and see if George Osborne shows the same generosity to you as he does to the super-rich.

[eFestivals]

Have yoy read what I wrote in the HE thread about equality? At an extremely superficial level, free HE for all is about equality. However - and I have researched this extensively over the last 12-18 months - the only way you can count that as equality is if you accept every degree from every institution has the same value. And you already know that they dont. The best universities and the best degrees are reserved to a huge extent for the middle classes because they have had a better standard of education prior to university, often paid for. The vast majority (over 90%) of students that go to a university outside of the top 20 Russell Group universities statistically gain no financial benefit from going to university and in many, many cases will never earn as much as someone who pursues a career from leaving school at 18 - but they will get several thousand pounds of debt for the privilege. But yes, let's charge these people the same as those from more privileged backgrounds where that privilege buys a better education and a better university and a better degree. And then they can go on and repeat the cycle with the next generation because they got the jobs that lead to privilege and can buy privileged education etc etc etc.

Not even remotely does that equate to equality.

I'm aware of these things.

But you saying "let's make it harder for the poorest to have any opportunity of those best Unis at all" doesn't lessen that situation, does it? It makes the scenario you outline even stronger, social mobility even less, and any chance of meaningful equality far lower.

There's no perfect system, but making things less perfect as you suggest makes things worse.

I think he probably got bored of you not understanding basic logic in your usual tourettes like way. And it was he explaining my position, not me agreeing with his.

No, he's talking the same bollocks he always is, gleaned from a book but with no relationship to anyone's reality.

I've asked him three times to demonstrate what he's said is true which he's backed away from doing because he can't.

Show me. You can't because I haven't, I have simply disputed your assertion that every action is ideological - a claim you even contradicted yourself on by explaining you dont know why they abandoned the third runway.

I could give you a list of their possible ideological reasoning, and one would be right. I simply declined to guess at which they'd put forwards as their reason.

You keep pulling me up on things Ive never said!! When I pull you up, I actually quote what you have said in the post, you just make it up or imagine it!

You're talking bollocks.

You've defended all of the coalitions cutting as necessary - without even knowing what they'd be cutting. And you've wrongly banged on about "Labour haven't said what they'll cut but the coalition have", when until this week the coalition hadn't.

Pretend all you like. I don't need to search for you words to know you've explicitly said those things.

[lost]

peter looks older than 35.. or has he had a hard life?

Edited October 22, 2010 by lost

[sifi]

Johann Hari in The Independant summed it up quite well for me.

[eFestivals]

I wont bother showing you the opinion polls that you claim show the public support your position on the cuts when in fact 60% (according to Ipsos/Mori) actually agree with the cuts.

Nowhere have I said that everything they're doing is the most preferred - their best - ideological option.

What I have said is that all that they're doing is driven by their ideology.

Spot the difference?

I wont bother showing you the opinion polls that you claim show the public support your position on the cuts when in fact 60% (according to Ipsos/Mori) actually agree with the cuts.

Again, utterly wrong.

The agree with the *NEED* for cuts. They don't necessarily agree with the specifics or the depth.

[sifi]

peter looks older than 35.. or has he had a hard life?

[eFestivals]

That's because the reasoning is irrelevant. The policy cannot be called Tory as it's supported by many political parties. More importantly, if you're talking about the reasoning behind something then you're not talking about pragmatism. Pragmatism doesn't care about the reasoning, only the end result.

As to reasoning, to say that the Tories support the policy due to Tory reasoning is f**king docile. Tories choosing a policy shows that Tories agree with it. Reasoning isn't synonymous with ideology though. For instance, they may reason that they'd better get into people's good books in relation to choosing policy rather than follow ideology, which brings us full circle.

Yes, you're so right. All reasons for doing something are completely irrelevant from a ideological perspective.

FFS, you're a moron.

[worm]

Yes, you're so right. All reasons for doing something are completely irrelevant from a ideological perspective.

Edited October 22, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

What I've just said was totally irrelevant

corrected for you.

Because that's f**k all to do with anything I said, and nothing to do with what you first said back to me on what I'd said.

That's because what you said back to me on what I said was complete bollocks, which you're now trying your hardest to pretend you never said.

But do give me some more of your bullshit, as ever I can't wait for it.

[worm]

corrected for you.

Edited October 24, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Reasoning is irrelvant as to whether something is ideological or not. So your come back was nonsense.

That's right. Because people adhere to ideologies for no reason at all.

You're insane.

[dorlomin]

Debt as a % of GDP

Tax revenue vs Government spending.

Illustrative.

[dorlomin]

He's 49, according to his own myspace page. Interestingly when I put Peter Dow into google, I get an Aberdeen Tramps styled blogspot page, which amongst other things details his predilection for under age girls.

[pehaw]

Go to love the mash

http://www.thedailym...s-201006282856/

[dorlomin]

This is a US story but its just a day old.

Google pays just 2.4% tax rate.

The same sort of scam goes on in the UK. Your cuts pay for their bonuses.

Edited October 22, 2010 by dorlomin

[llcoolphil]

I'm aware of these things.

But you saying "let's make it harder for the poorest to have any opportunity of those best Unis at all" doesn't lessen that situation, does it? It makes the scenario you outline even stronger, social mobility even less, and any chance of meaningful equality far lower.

There's no perfect system, but making things less perfect as you suggest makes things worse.

[worm]

That's right. Because people adhere to ideologies for no reason at all.

[Peter Dow]

MPs & councillors who won't fight the cuts.

To get the real Fight The Cuts campaign under way full steam, the other fraudulent campaign against the cuts must be exposed as the sham it is.

I am talking about those Labour and nationalist MPs in the Westminster parliament who claim to oppose cuts yet who swear loyalty to the Queen whose government is imposing these cuts and indeed who aspire to become Queen's ministers of the crown and rule the kingdom for the Queen.

I am talking about members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Councillors who will claim to oppose the cuts yet who will be the very ones who will fail to raise local taxes to replace penny for penny every cut made, who will fail to take over responsibility to make welfare payments when the UK Department of Work and Pensions reduces or stops welfare payments and who instead will use the kingdom's police and courts to enforce the cuts and tame any popular resistance to the cuts.

I am talking about Trade Union Congress officials who will want to invite opposition politicians from parliaments, assemblies and councils to speak at stop-the-cuts rallies. They mean well but trade union leaders do not have the wits to see when politicians are playing politicians' games, posturing opposition but in reality surrendering to cuts.

Only when all these fake opponents to the cuts are exposed as worthless wind-bags who will sit back and allow cuts can the real Fight The Cuts campaign begin in earnest.

What is the test? The test is opposition or loyalty to the kingdom and its head of state, the Queen. To fight the cuts seriously we, the people, must call on our national military to fight the kingdom and fight its head of state, the Queen. We, the people, must be prepared to ask our military to kill the Queen if we are serious about killing her government's cuts.

Therefore take seriously any person claiming to fight the cuts who also calls for immediate military action against the royal family to exclude them from the country on pain of arrest, attack and assassination.

Given the choice between allowing the Queen's cuts and calling for the Queen's death - which choice does a politician claiming to oppose the cuts make?

Anyone who is for war against the Queen and her kingdom, as I am, is serious about fighting Her Majesty's Government's cuts, as I am.

Any politician or indeed any leader up on a stage with a microphone who is not for that war is not really serious about fighting cuts and is more concerned to keep in with the kingdom which has given them position in its bodies such as parliaments, assemblies and councils.

From the new Fight The Cuts FORUM

[Pogues Mcgogues]

He's 49, according to his own myspace page. Interestingly when I put Peter Dow into google, I get an Aberdeen Tramps styled blogspot page, which amongst other things details his predilection for under age girls.

[llcoolphil]

MPs & councillors who won't fight the cuts.

To get the real Fight The Cuts campaign under way full steam, the other fraudulent campaign against the cuts must be exposed as the sham it is.

I am talking about those Labour and nationalist MPs in the Westminster parliament who claim to oppose cuts yet who swear loyalty to the Queen whose government is imposing these cuts and indeed who aspire to become Queen's ministers of the crown and rule the kingdom for the Queen.

I am talking about members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Councillors who will claim to oppose the cuts yet who will be the very ones who will fail to raise local taxes to replace penny for penny every cut made, who will fail to take over responsibility to make welfare payments when the UK Department of Work and Pensions reduces or stops welfare payments and who instead will use the kingdom's police and courts to enforce the cuts and tame any popular resistance to the cuts.

I am talking about Trade Union Congress officials who will want to invite opposition politicians from parliaments, assemblies and councils to speak at stop-the-cuts rallies. They mean well but trade union leaders do not have the wits to see when politicians are playing politicians' games, posturing opposition but in reality surrendering to cuts.

Only when all these fake opponents to the cuts are exposed as worthless wind-bags who will sit back and allow cuts can the real Fight The Cuts campaign begin in earnest.

What is the test? The test is opposition or loyalty to the kingdom and its head of state, the Queen. To fight the cuts seriously we, the people, must call on our national military to fight the kingdom and fight its head of state, the Queen. We, the people, must be prepared to ask our military to kill the Queen if we are serious about killing her government's cuts.

Therefore take seriously any person claiming to fight the cuts who also calls for immediate military action against the royal family to exclude them from the country on pain of arrest, attack and assassination.

Given the choice between allowing the Queen's cuts and calling for the Queen's death - which choice does a politician claiming to oppose the cuts make?

Anyone who is for war against the Queen and her kingdom, as I am, is serious about fighting Her Majesty's Government's cuts, as I am.

Any politician or indeed any leader up on a stage with a microphone who is not for that war is not really serious about fighting cuts and is more concerned to keep in with the kingdom which has given them position in its bodies such as parliaments, assemblies and councils.