Be Excellent To Each Other

No, it's gone from about 70 to 400+ becausecthey are so in demand.

That's sad.

The young dont vote Conservative unless they are freaks like a young Rees Mogg or Hague (we've all seen that clip of him with hair when he was 16)

As they dont vote they get royally screwed over, so they dont vote and so the cycle continues:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53560.html

Why is unemployment at 5.7%?

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2 ... ant-count/


That's why.

Shame Paxman didnt ask him what the Sanction count was after he didnt know what the Food Bank count is. They are very related.

Actually, Fuck it. CBA.

Oh man, the food banks argument.

Seriously, did anyone think that after the economy had tanked 10% - a depression, not a recession - that people, especially poor people, wouldn't suffer as a result? People love quoting this unfortunate food bank stat with what is to my mind very unfortunate glee (almost as much as Liam Byrne with his infamous "there's no money left!" note), blaming the hapless Tories (and Lib Dems) who had to clean up the aftermath, but never the Labour Party who, y'know, actually *caused* said depression, as even Miliband himself now even admits..?

It's just all so depressing to be honest; the usual "fuck the Tories!!11" nonsense, the bar charts and all the rest. I could say until I'm blue in the face that even Labour themselves were promising "cuts deeper than Thatcher" in their 2010 election campaign, like as if these somehow would not have similarly hit people in more or less the same way, but I'm wasting my breath.

By the same token, they'll not give any credit whatsoever for the fact that within just 4-5 years of taking over, we're now the fastest growing western economy, 1000 private sector jobs have been created for every single one of those days (more than for the rest of Europe put together), inflation is zero, crime is massively down, wages are now outstripping inflation and so on. Rome wasn't built in a day; no-one from my side of the political divide is remotely saying the current work in progress is anything like ideal, that many people are not still suffering or that there's not work still to be done. Things are, however, vastly better than they were; the trajectory is unquestionably upwards and if anyone was offering what we now have back in the terrible, dark days of 2008-2010, we'd have bitten their hands off. But still, "fuck teh evil Tories" etc. blah blah. How childish, how irrational, how stupid. I could excuse angry teenagers/young people such sentiments and comments (and do), but not fortysomething blokes, sorry.

I also love the implication that somehow, people like me are uncaring about the fact that many people have to use foodbanks? For the record, I take the trouble to check with the nearest foodbank around here; I buy bags and bags of expensive tinned meat and the like, not crisps and rubbish and take the trouble to take it to them every week; my wife bought and gift wrapped loads of pretty expensive presents and took them down last Christmas. No, we're not saints; there's plenty more I could do, along with many others. But at least I don't think doing the right thing, performing a genuine social service comprises of being a sanctimonious 'social justice warrior' at the end of a computer keyboard, railing impotently, idiotically and above all uselessly at the world about absurd, obsessive, politically correct nonsense that's of no consequence - and much more importantly, butters no parsnips and is of precisely nil practical, or indeed any other value?

Yeah dont let the facts, like bar charts get in the way Cavey.
Labour would not have sanctioned the unemployed and disabled on an industrial scale like has happened in the past few years.

Dont take my word for it:

Did you watch either of these two Dispatches programmes?


Britain's Benefits Crackdown

Reporter Liz MacKean investigates Britain's new benefits regime and asks what life is really like for those hit with penalties

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /59670-004


Benefits Britain

The government say their flagship new benefit, Universal Credit, is working well and is helping people into work. Critics say it is a shambles. Dispatches goes undercover to investigate.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... /61526-001


If you haven't then maybe you should, it could open your eyes even if it doesn't change your opinion.

The global finacial apocalypse was entirely Labour's fault, the global finacial recovery is solely due to the Tories, food bank usage still rising sharply after five years of Tory rule is also Labour's fault, and jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Hey Doc, how about sardonically posting a pie chart showing me how many food banks there are (again), or perhaps one that shows earnings haven't, quite, yet recovered to 2008 values with inflation factored in (again), like as if it's some hitherto unseen pearl of wisdom that in any way counters the points actually being made by the grownups in this discussion, is in any way helpful or relevant whatsoever, or indeed is anything remotely beyond the utterly banal?

Thanks.

And, as always, the truth is somewhere in the middle of both sides of this never ending argument...

To be fair Troops, I was commenting about what Miliband actually said in the TV debate, which isn't really open to too much interpretation. Either he said it or he didn't, and unless my own ears deceive me, it's the former.

No doubt some pie chart about NHS waiting times is incoming, though, as we speak.

I guess that means Cavey didnt see the programmes, and would rather watch an hour of Downton Abbey to re-affirm his world view.


Incidentally in a parallel world last Thursday David Davis and David Milliband had a real head to head debate. I'd have liked to have seen that.


(David Davis would have made a much better PM than Cameron)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... tion,_2005

The Tories have fucked over the common workers access to the employment tribunals with a frankly disgusting introduction of tribunal fees and an increase of a further year before you can claim unfair dismissal (seriously? You've got to wait 2 years to get basic rights?)

So if your employer doesn't like the look of your face and sacks you for no reason such that you have to use the food banks, you won't be able to defend your rights cause you won't have any spare cash to pay £1,000 just to have your case heard.

Fuck the Tories.

Amen brother

Slashing legal aid access has also made it a lot easier to fuck over the little guy, believe you me.

Because you run a toddler sweatshop?

That would be awesome.

"Coalition" on channel 4 has started well.

I don't trust Tory when it comes to the NHS and welfare.
I don't trust labour when it comes to the economy.
I don't trust either of them when it comes to foreign policy and defence.

So... What now? My constituency is a close run thing, 40% labour, 37% Tory last time. I have no idea who I'm going to vote for. I'd like to vote something other than labour or Tory, but there really isn't any point here.
I'm actually tempted to spoil my paper, for the first time ever.

Stinkpalm your ballot paper.

The characterisations are very good indeed

It's a hoot!

I don't bother with this forum much any more, except to talk about a card game that I enjoy. But I shouldn't worry as nothing much changes. Gaywood continues to snipe snark in the perpetual delusion that he's actually being quite clever, and others try to make Cavey feel like he's the most evil person in the world for daring to hold a contrary political opinion in the face of an opposed majority, and then has the temerity to defend it with sincerity. The bastard!

But then we're operating in the kind of internet playground where someone can post a picture of David Cameron with the caption 'Twat', and it'll get retweeted/shared/upvoted along with some chortling nonsense about how true that clearly is! Hohoho! Hate the Tories! Bedroom Tax! Selling the NHS! Misinformed headline #3!

Politics is so fucking tedious. Everyone is straining to take the smallest thing out of context so they can strawman it into the most awful thing that should definitely not make you vote for the other guy because they're basically Hitler. Except the truth is irrelevant and people are largely sheep that believe headlines and spun bullshit.

When I watched Paxman grill Ed, he seemed like a child under an uncomfortable spotlight. Rather emotional, jerky responses trying to brush off his self-evident lack of statesmanship. The quip about putting Ed in a room with Putin couldn't have been more on the nose. I shudder at the thought of that snivelling idiot representing the UK in anything. For the millionth time I wonder what the fuck the Labour party were thinking when they chose him over his infinitely more capable and charismatic brother.

But then I don't think Cameron knocked it out of the park either. He's clearly the better leader of the two men, but that's not saying much. I keep mentally comparing our politicians to leaders of old, and none of the modern lot seem to have even a fraction of the presence and articulation. Cameron seemed too keen to reiterate what had clearly been identified as the scoring points of the last term and tried to roll them out as answers regardless of what the question was.

I'm delighted we got shot of Labour in 2010. The finances were in a right fucking mess, and god only knows what would have happened if we'd given them yet another spin of the wheel. If put in power they'll revert to the old 'borrow our way to prosperity' nonsense in quick order. I don't think I believe anyone that says they can balance the budget, but funnily I trust the Tories far more with the books than I ever will Labour.

But the traditional model is breaking down. Modern media saturation has allowed minority voices to gain traction and it's sucked away traditional support. The Lib Dems look like they'll lose the popular vote to UKIP, and god fucking help us if the nationalist twats in Scotland start trying to dictate terms to whoever gets in power. It'll be a destabilised ineffectual government that'll get fuck all done for infighting and bad faith.

For a stable government people will need to stop dicking around with the idea of small ideological parties and decide which side of the two-faced arsehole is the better one for them, because anything else just makes for weakness and instability.

Voting Tory in Scotland truly is pissing in the wind, so I'll probably pick whichever candidate is most likely to beat out the local SNP tosser and consider that good enough. How depressing.

Well, either decide if you care more about NHS+welfare or the economy, and use that to pick Tory or Labour. Or vote your conscience for a minority party, assuming there is one you like more -- but is there? Who do you have standing in your constituency?

Or just stay home, knowing that it's not like one vote amongst tens of thousands would matter much.

Spoiling your paper doesn't achieve anything, no-one pays attention to those statistics or sorts out the (tiny) number of deliberate spoils from the (larger) number of idiots.

I'm in a safe Tory seat; used to be a swing seat (it was David Mellor's, a long time ago) but the boundaries were redrawn a few years back and it's very Conservative now -- my MP is a junior minister (Justine Greening.) So my vote has almost zero value, sadly.

It's not that simple though, they are all inextricably linked. You can't pay for a good NHS and welfare system without a strong economy to fund it.

I want to challenge this "The Tories are better with the Economy" crap.

I was around when this happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 519013.stm

The Tories have privatised / sold off everything in this country possible. The reason they cant get rid of the deficit is because quite literally there is nothing left to sell. Previous Tory administrations have sold it all. Oh they found one last thing at the back of the sofa.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ayer-loser

If you think David Cameron looks and acts like a better Prime Minister by not answering the question posed every Wednesday for 30mins and then asking questions back???? (something for all his faults Blair and Brown didn't do) then vote accordingly. I just see him as a better liar than Milliband.

If you think someone like DC has even the remotest idea what the average persons life is going to work in a shop factory or office and paying the bills then vote accordingly.

I think the final day of parliament just showed what a despicable man he is by trying to get rid of the Speaker (a Conservative no less!!!) just because he hates him.

I really enjoyed that, and it wouldn't have done any harm to the lib dems, that's for sure.

Trooper, I can see what you mean, but if you can't choose between the two majority parties due to distrust in various areas and have a minority party whose policies you are more closely aligned in support with, why not vote for them rather than spoiling your ballot?

If there's no majority government it could be smaller numbers that give the backing to give your choice of the smaller parties the opportunity to join into a coalition discussion, so would still hold point and sway.

That's what I expect I will end up doing, but it won't make any difference due to first past the post.

I'm probably going to end up voting lib dem, as fptp has to go for there to be any chance of a change in the political landscape, and they are the only ones who are at least trying to get rid of fptp.

That's a point though, I don't know what the greens think about the voting system, I shall investigate.

I used to think along these lines, until I realised that macroeconomics is just guesswork at best. Regression to the mean shows that the economy would have got better whoever was in power. I now discount it from my thinking.

http://news.sky.com/story/1454690/milib ... -poll-lead

^ Why Cameron didn't want to do the debate. Imagine if it had been head to head.

The Planet Money episode "How do politications create jobs" is worth a listen. The tl;dr is: they don't, it just happens and they take as much credit as they can. At the most generous interpretation, the levers that politicians can pull at the macro scale of the economy are several orders of effect away from anything that creates or destroys a job. It's like trying to control congestion on the train network if all you can do is build or close down roads.

Right now, I don't know who I'll vote for. I don't want to spoil my paper in a general election (on the odd occasion when I've done that, I always draw a dinosaur), and as I live in a safe Tory seat it's pretty much peeing in the wind anyway, but I am still torn.

The Tories probably have the edge on the economy for me, but I can't forgive them for the dog's dinner of a reform that was the Health & Social Care Act (despite being quite relaxed about the use of private companies to provide care free at the point of use), and whilst Theresa May started well, she's finally gone batshit, as happens to all Home Secretaries.

Labour: I just can't see any credible leaders right now, and with the world situation far darker than it was five years ago, that's worrying prospect. I've also read somewhere that they want to seriously raise the cost of a gun licence, because only toffs want them.

Lib Dems: Unfairly criticised over tuition fees, but that was a completely avoidable own goal. Probably done better in government then we've given them credit for. Can't trust them on Europe.

Greens: Disagree with them on trade issues and genetically modified organisms.

UKIP: Only benefit of voting for them would be to force the Tories to hold the long-awaited referendum, but as they are not a single issue party and composed of nasty right-wing fruitcakes I can't support them.

I hate the idea of the student politicians of the SNP holding the balance of power, and I particularly don't trust them on defence or their obsession with spending. Also, don't play the outsider card when you're holding power yourself.

I think I'll vote Whig.

For me it's about this:



Danielle, having extensive experience of the shitshow that is the US system, thinks we're mad to be fucking about with the NHS. In the US, private healthcare companies bill your insurer for your treatment. Those treatments costs are quite routinely 5x-10x of what we pay here; the inefficiencies of having a fragmented landscape of pricing plus lots of middlemen all adding their profit margins mean there's no funtioning free market (plus a litigious culture tends to over-treat everything.) Here, at least the NHS can negotiate very hard with suppliers to keep costs down. Suppose we move all the way to a system where the NHS acts as a tender house, buying in many services from commercial partners, but still free to the patient. It's not at all clear than the efficiencies people claim privatisation will bring will outweigh the inefficiencies the blight the US system.

Plus it keeps going wrong. Privatised hospitals that collapse, requiring the government to bail out the company (at more expense to the taxpayer.) Contracts worth hundreds of millions granted to firms that "have been heavily criticised... for providing poor quality of care in hospitals and care homes."

Reminds me of how Serco and G4S somehow keep getting contract after contract, despite fucking up everything they touch e.g. the Olympics and a £109m fine for overcharging the government. We're considering privatising the part of the social services that decides to take children away from their parents to those firms, BTW, after ATOS did such a bang-up job of assessing fit-to-work claims that the government shut the contract down early. Oh, and don't forget we undervalued the Post Office by hundreds of millions when selling it off. I won't get started on the railways, beyond noting that the East Coast line was privatised, collapsed, was nationalised, ran at a profit as customer satisfaction soared, and has now been sold off again.

Seems to me there's two debates to be had: an ideological one about the size of the state and how many of the state's services should be privatised (there are two sides here), and a pragmatic one about whether either the Tory or Labour party are capable of privatising things without fucking it up (I don't see how anyone can argue that privatisation has a great track record of success.)

Many privatised services are like the banks: too big to fail. Companies can pitch low bids and gamble, knowing that if they fail the government will be forced to step in anyway because you can't have true market competition on running a monopoly resource like a hospital or a train line. People have to see doctors and have to get to work, so the facilities have to run. If you can't introduce actual competition -- if you can't force a new entrant to build new train lines or build new hospitals -- then you don't have a functioning market, you have a state-authorised regional monopoly. If you have a monopoly, you don't have any of the benefits of free-market capitalisation, just the costs.

Capitalism cannot survive when entities become too big to fail, because letting weak companies fail is one of the vital balances in capitalism.

Scared the shit out of me when Cameron mooted the possible future leaders of the Tory party when he steps down: Boris Johnson (a nasty piece of work cloaked behind buffoonery), May (who's as you say seems to be batshit), or Osborne. I mean, Osborne is probably the lesser of those evils, and that's saying something.

What most angered me (as a previous LibDem voter) wasn't tuition fees, where they betrayed an election promise; I could put that down to the pragmatic demands of being in coalition government. For me the low point was the vote on judicial review, where they betrayed a founding principle of the entire party.



(I could write at length about the farcical number of times that Grayling has had his arse handed to him by our judiciary, but this post is long enough.)

I also object to their nuclear policy. We need more nuclear, not less, if we're going to start cutting carbon emissions.

Also marginally increases the risk that we end up in a Tory-UKIP coalition, which I think is a worst case scenario for the country.

Better Together. If one campaigns to keep Scotland in the Union -- and all our parties did, hard -- and if one also campaigned to keep first-past-the-post in place -- which, again, all our party leaders did during the AV referendum -- one cannot complain when it turns out the SNP might hold the balance of power in a hung parliament. The phrase "hoist by one's own petard" comes to mind.

I find that particularly odious of UKIP. Farage is a millionare ex-banker nob. Roger Helmer, one of their MEPs, is constantly playing the anti-establishment card, despite having been a Tory MP for 20-odd years. They're about as establishment as it comes.

SGTM. I'll join you.

Seriously - and I'm genuinely sorry to say it, as I've enjoyed our science chats in the past - what utter two-dimensional, simplistic garbage you talk, Doc.

Look, I'm certainly not presenting myself as any kind of gold standard or anything even remotely approaching it; by my own cheerful admission I frequently come acoss as a bit of a knob, I tend to get over excited and make an arse of myself on occasion. But you? You like to present yourself as some smug, chin-stroking intellectual of the forum, which I've no doubt is actually justified if we're talking about matters of science, mathematics, IT and engineering - but politics...?

Sorry to say it but the number of discussions you've (IMO) derailed with your posting of stuff that isn't relevant, isn't even disputed and/or is entirely patronising ("here's a pie chart showing poor people are suffering" in response to quite a nuanced discussion about political culpability re. the financial crisis... really?)

This latest little gem: choose Labour if you give a shit about the NHS and welfare, the implication being that Tory voters couldn't care less about these things? Has it not occurred to you that actually, without a successful economy, neither the NHS or welfare can move forwards, so it's surely a case of prioritising that first and foremost - "it's the economy, stupid"...?

Hey, here are some "empirical wotsits" for you (you'll recognise that turn of phrase, no doubt ), and guess what - I've even included a graph just for you, and it's actually relevant to this discussion!

I found this article just now by typing in "NHS satisfaction survey" into Google; took all of 5 seconds. Go me!

https://fullfact.org/public-satisfactio ... y-happier/



Ooh, that doesn't quite fit into this grievance-hunting, "fuck teh Tories" zeitgeist, hmmm? What have we here, NHS satisfaction levels at their second highest ever, and dissatisfaction at their lowest ever levels? (including, I might add, halving what they were in 2004).

Inconvenient facts, eh Doc? Perhaps those "evil" health reforms ain't so bad afterall..? A bit like those rather more inconvenient key facts like an economy that's growing fastest in the western world, 2 million jobs created since 2010, inflation and interest rates at rock bottom, deficit coming down, unemployment plummeting to 5%, FTSE riding high... not so much an elephant in the room, as an entire herd of 'em?

Genuinely, I'd hate to be on your side of the fence, I really would, as being proved wrong about stuff, time and again, would really brass me off.

Awesome post EBG, thank you for your kind words and even moreso for your insightful, intelligent analysis which is like a fleetingly wonderful breath of beautiful, fresh air in a stinking, wretched, fetid bog.

I sincerely hope you can keep motivated to continue to contribute, I really do. For the sake of my own sanity for one.

Exactly so; see my linked info to Gaywood as well.

You're a clever guy, Trooper; unlike some, you've seen plenty of life, you have a senior management role so you know a thing or two about people, the world, and what makes everything work. You don't need to be lectured by the likes of me as regards everything follows a properly functioning, growing and performing economy.

Imagine you're interviewing two people for an absolutely critical CEO role. You have only these two people; not choosing either of them isn't an option.

One of them comes across as a nice guy, the kind of unassuming, well-meaning bloke that you'd happily have a pint with. However, looking over his record, you see that everywhere he's worked has gone catastrophically badly, and his response during interview was to candidly admit to terrible errors of judgement with appalling consequences - but that he, and the very same team of people he was proposing to appoint - had "learned their lesson", even though his fundamental mind-set and beliefs had not actually changed one iota.

The other guy comes across as a bit arrogant and cocksure, not really your cup of tea - but he's got an amazing track record of indisputable, empirical success (albeit hard won, upsetting a lot of people and with casualties along the way).

Who do you choose?

Right, so never mind Labour were directly responsible by their own admission for the biggest economic catastrophe to ever befall this country, and all the abject misery and impoverishment that it entailed and continues to entail (not to mention bare-faced lying and deception leading to a catastrophic war killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, all the tens and hundreds of billions spent on it and a whole host of unbelievably mismanaged public contracts) - but hey, those basturt Tories, they've been tinkering with employment tribunal procedures...

Perhaps they thought our bombed-out economy could not withstand the increasing number of default-option, no-risk, frivolous unfair dismissal claims, if we were to encourage employers to take people off the dole.

It's called having priorities.
Given a starkly finite pot of money to play with, I suppose the Tories decided they'd rather pay nurses, doctors, policemen and teachers, than lawyers.

Regretfully, curiously got the better of me, so I logged out of the thread and had a look. Could the mods please tell Cavey and EBG to knock off the stream of personal abuse directed at me; I can't counter because I don't read it, and if I were reading it, it would still be needlessly unpleasant and as far as I can see entirely one-sided. I haven't written any personal attacks on either of them.

I am not purposely abusing you at all (and in fact I've been quite complimentary). Many is the time that you have posted provocative stuff about things I have said (including just yesterday with your unprovoked "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" post when I'd said nothing at all to you), not so much the views themselves which are entirely fair enough, but the use of patronising language and all the rest.

I'll save the mods here the trouble though, I've said what I've wanted to say (so thanks for this opportunity) and have no wish for any unpleasantness, so just delete the account/posts as you see fit. I'm done.

Hahaha, thanks chap, and there I was thinking my post was invisible.

Aside from yourself I am only particularly interested to know what Kern thinks, as he more than anyone actually approaches things logically and with some thought. I don't actually disagree with any of his points in the previous post. Everyone has their pros and cons, and the assessment is fair. There are certainly some barmy Tories with funny ideas; Gove shouldn't have been trusted with so much as a carrot during the last term.

But given the options my support isn't remotely in question. Ironically I might end up voting Labour in Scotland purely to take support away from the SNP who would otherwise try to defy the democratic will of the United Kingdom by voting down a minority Tory government's Queen Speech, purely for their own small-minded political ends. Truly, they are the worse of the ideological mentalists and I regard anyone who supports them to be either profoundly ignorant or simply a dyed-in-the-wool parochial tribal tosser.

Second place mental goes to the Greens who, among other policies, believe that women shouldn't be put in prison at all because they have "particular vulnerabilities and domestic and childcare commitments" (Source). Natalie Bennett recently did an AMA on reddit, and her response to these completely sexist elements of her party's manifesto were downvoted to oblivion - which is funny as reddit is largely pro-left and most of the comments were to the tune of 'I support the Greens but this is sexist and stupid'. Turns out these bits of the policy were unduly influenced by the feminist wing, Green Party Women. Men obviously have no vulnerabilities that need be considered, etc.

I don't support giving prisoners the vote either. We've fought tooth and nail in defiance of the EU to retain that sovereign right to decide that for ourselves. At least Lib Dem policies are somewhat grounded in reality, whereas the Greens are just a smorgasbord of unrealistic, impractical bullshit designed to appease various aspects of different left-wing groups.

So yes, vote ideologically for the small party that will never achieve real power and will never be able to enact their head-in-cloud policies if they ever did, because pesky reality would get in the way. At least the Tories and Labour have some experience of government, which does dampen their electoral promises at least a little, because they don't have the luxury of being completely unrealistic.

UKIP have played their part by forcing the Tories to respond, and we'll get a referendum in 2017 to put the EU question to bed. If Cameron thinks he's got a shot at negotiating favourably for the UK in a reformed EU then I'm happy to give him a shot. If he fails miserably it will make the referendum even more critical. Labour are utterly terrified of the EU and nothing would compel them to give the people their say on the matter. Ed's response to Paxman that 'We have other things to worry about, it's not a priority', just shows how utterly out of touch he is. Just a few more votes for A N Other.

Well if you could knock off the countenance of being a smug twat, then truly I would not have to tell you that's what I think of you.

"I've just read it, but I can't counter it, because I can't read it."

'Stream of personal abuse' indeed - get a grip.

That's really quite sad. I don't see any of the bullshit they post either, but persistent personal attacks against someone who's not even responding to you? These people need to step away from their keyboards and reevaluate their lives.

We need some sort of ignore master list so everyone can work out who it's pointless trying to talk to.

2 million part time, zero hour or self employed jobs. Have to be subsidised by the tax payer because they dont pay enough to live on.

Inflation at zero is actually worrying economists, its not a sign of a healthy economy. Most of that is down to the oil price crash, also a worrying sign of the state of the global economy

Interest rates at rock bottom is also not a great indicator. Interest rates actually were cut to 0.5% in March 2009, a year before the Coalition. The fact its stayed at that level is because of a flatlining economy.

Deficit was supposed to be eliminated, Osborne only managed to get it down by just over 1/3, which is what Labour promised to do in 2010.

Unemployment isnt 5%. Its 5.7%. Add the 1 million people sanctioned last year to that figure to get the real figure. Then add anyone else in who hasnt got a job but doesnt count in the figures like 16-18 year olds, carers etc.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... yment-rate

FTSE riding high, yes, it was this high just before the Dot com crash in 1999. What goes up, must come down, and it will. Reason it is so high, see interest rates being so low that people buy shares to hopefully get an income from dividends and profit taking from upward share price movements.

Your facts are facts you read about but dont delve a little deeper. Go watch that first Dispatches, which shows the sanctions imposed on a pregnant mother and the disabled father of two. Go on. It's only there for 3 more days.

You'll learn more watching that for 27 minutes than 27 minutes reading the Daily Mail.

increasing number? Where have you got that from - the Daily Mail. The statistics speak for themselves that the introduction of tribunal fees*, reduction of legal aid, amendments from the Enterprise Act and so on and so forth have had a catastrophic impact on access to justice. But so what if the "hard working family**" has been priced out of justice, aye? So what if the "hard working family" can't afford basic rights? Least the rich will still be able to afford it. That's the kind of society I want to live in.

Seriously: Fuck. The. Tories.

*http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_20140727.htm

**http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/meet-the-hardestworking-family-in-british-politics-8422961.html?action=gallery

What, and you actually expect me to answer? Hot on the heels of your earlier provocations about Downton Abbey, me and my "well fed" world view, my being compassionate is a myth and all the rest, in pretty much every unasked for, unwanted and entirely unhelpful, "I've seen it on the telly so it must be true" response to more or less every one of my own posts that you tiresomely make? I'm seriously fascinated - and for once, would actually appreciate your response on this? Amazing.

I get "the abuse card" played on me, but hey, it's okay for others, including you, to in effect, accuse me of not giving a damn about people who have to use foodbanks (despite the fact that, quite possibly uniquely among this forum or at least part of only a small percentage of it, I personally help and buy for the foodbank here every single week), not giving a hoot about the NHS, my intelligence overtly offended with "aircraft fuel not melting steel beams" comments (entirely unsolicited), and now that old favorite: Daily Mail jibes yet again? [Edit: see also above - true to form though, no attempt made to actually address the substantive element of my post]

I have posted admittedly robust political comments, up to and including in response to others' equally robust comments - in a general election thread one month before the election itself that no-one has to read (especially since there are specific "whole thread ignore" options as I understand it, among other ignore functions that apparently are even in use).

It's all just so absurd. I, like pretty much everyone else here, simply want the best outcome for all the people of this country; my views are just as genuine and earnest as anyone else's. Yes, the methodology might well differ, but the good intentions/goodwill are precisely the same; I have, to my mind at least, expended reasonable effort and have presented interesting information as part of what I've said (which has naturally gone entirely unchallenged and uncommented on of course; just a bunch of sardonic, facetious shite, overt baiting and personal insults in lieu. "Play the man, not the ball", right Beex?)

It seems pretty clear that unless one subscribes to the ultra left leaning consensus around here, Beex is most certainly a political discussion free zone (let alone political debate), which is very sad considering the fine legacy this forum had for lively debates over the years - and WoS before it. (Even Stu, who is about as left-leaning and uncompromising as it gets, didn't have a problem with such debate, in fact actually encouraged it).

Well, so be it. Enjoy your unpleasant little echo chamber.

Well if that doesn't take the cake. Someone who hasn't read the posts, taking the misleading characterisation of someone who also says he can't read the posts, in order to cast a judgement while completely lacking any of the facts required for such a statement.

If this is what we're up against Cavey, I think we're going to be able to struggle on.