Mumsnet Talk

Labour, Tory Libs they are all cunts...

^^This.

YABU. Where is the actual evidence in the article? Anyone could list a load of stuff like this. I am damn sure I could find a list of why no-one should ever vote Labour but just because I listed it wouldn't make it true.

And princess really - that old chestnut. I thought everyone with half a brain now knew that was only half the quote.

Obviously those of us with a whole brain are yet to catch on.

Reading this thread has infuriated me.......
I agree that Labour initiated the WCA done by the wonderful ATOSSERS and really that was one of the worst decisions they made, but the DRACONIAN ConDems have restricted the system to the point that people with brain tumours, receiving treatment are 'fit for work'. Many of those found fit for work have died before their appeal has been heard or have committed suicide. Many people do not go through the appeal system as it terrifies them....... I could go on.......

This government has Ministers in it that have been in receipt of benefits in one way or another, excluding child benefit. David Cameron was not backward at coming forward claiming DLA for his late son, when he was in a position to provide the highest standard of care from his own privileged pocket.

The only people the Tories are benefiting are those who are already financially secure, bankers and tax evaders.

I hope that those of you who are attacking Sue Marsh and her blog belong in the above paragraph because if you don't none of you can be sure what is round the corner

Degu
As suggested, read the UEA document. I think you'll find it's called empirical evidence.

Politicians, whatever their party are a wankstain on the tissue of humanity. I think we should have the mumsnet party.

Due to the 'sensationalist, hysterical scare mongering' I have had to just get myself a solicitor on the advice of Shelter to ensure we keep our home.

Paid for by legal aid.

Cuts saving money? Really?

This stuff is happening. To real people.

People will still vote for the Tories because they agree with some of their policies. I don't agree with all of them, but I agree with some.

I agree that the article is sensationalist bollocks, and even if it can all be backed up, that doesn't mean that none of it should happen. This country desperately needed labour out of power.

You think it's sensationalist bollocks, but some of it should probably happen, is that right?
Looks as though you are getting what you wanted. All you Tory apologists out there: can you go through the bullet points and point out exactly what Sue has got wrong in her blogpost? I'm not interested in your views on how shit Labour are. We can probably agree on that much at least.

My God what a poorly written blog, Labour screwed up the ecomomy the next government had no choice but to reduce spending, better to look at whose fault it was in the first place. Why would anyone vote labour after what they did to our country!!

Larks 35 - I'm an in-patient in hospital at the moment and have been for the last four weeks, so I can't find and attach links very well at the moment.

However, if you've ever read anything else on my blog, you will see that I always prove my points with the highest quality sources - gov own figures, WHO etc. It's ironic really, because I'm known for being forensic, and proving everything I claim. This of course is something you never have with at all in newspaper articles.

I don't think anyone has said she got anything wrong, but then I doubt anyone can be bothered to look up every single thing she listed. Personally, I just said I agree with some of what is being done.

We will always find things to disagree with our government on whether or not we voted for them and no matter who they are. To me, it's a case of choosing the party who does the least that you disagree with.

Starttail - Good plan, because under the Tories new Universal Credit, BOTH parents will now have to work FULL TIME once their child reaches 12. I think your principled stand and commitment to making something you hate much much worse are admirable ;)

Outragedathepriceoffreddos - By using the description "sensationalist bollocks" it's not unreasonable to conclude you thought I'd got some of it wrong ;)

Both parents will not HAVE to work full time when their child reaches 12. They will just stop being subsidised so people will be expected to take financial responsibility for the children they create.

There is a big difference.

You are making it sound like people are going to be forced to work full time, and that's simply not true.

It's the way it's written that makes it sensationalist. You have only given one, very unbalanced account of things, and a good article doesn't do that IMO.

It's only the OP that calls it an article (sorry, OP). As I read it, it was intended as a post on the author's blog. Has it appeared anywhere else, suey2y?

Fair point Brecon, I shouldn't judge a blog in the same way I'd judge an article.

Having seen what the author of that blog has been through recently I really object to calling her a 'lefty fuckwit'.

What has she been through?

There is a good reason I called it an article in my OP: most of Sue's posts are intricately referenced, which you would find out for yourself if you could be bothered to read her blog.

Completely with you on the thoroughness with with Sue backs up her points, Nicholas ; however, it seemed to me that some posters were objecting to the content on the basis of it being onesided. Whatever you want to call it, it wasn't written as a news article, and the writer has no more duty to be politically unbiased than any one of us.

Nora, you could have a read of the blog if you're genuinely interested.

Wow, Sue posted on one of my threads. I am honoured!

Brecon, considering the shit treatment Sue has had from this government and its agencies I'm not surprised her post was one sided.

Read this post to see the other side, and how happy she sounds.