The Conservatives

[MammaBrussels]

I cannot believe someone, even someone in the Conservative Party, would say this.

How can anyone support them?

The N word can be played in songs on daytime Radio 2, so to say it is always offensive in any context is ridiculous.

MammaBrussels

I don't care. If you don't understand why using that word is unacceptable try what crazynanna suggested and see how long you last.

The post was deleted because you used racist language which contravenes Mumsnet talk guidelines. Accept it.

The post was deleted because you decided to take offence where there was none.

How dare you call me a bigot for having a racist post deleted.

You regard all Tories as racists, you regard Diane Abbott's racism as acceptable because she's black and you deliberately attempt to stifle the views of people who disagree with you. That's bigotry.

The post wasn't racist. It had a word which was racist in it, but it was being used to make a point and was not being used to abuse anyone.

Really? Aside from first point you made about Diane Abbott you haven't made any valid arguments.

You haven't understood them. That's rather different. And since you decided to have them deleted there's no simple way for me to explain them to you so that you can understand.

You think it is acceptable to use the N word I do not.

I never wrote that it was acceptable. You assumed that, because in your bigoted way you assumed that because I didn't agree that all Conservatives were racist that meant I must be racist.

You have the audacity to complain that your post was deleted because you used racist language. Accept it and grow up.

It was deleted because you'd rather have a post deleted than face up to someone questioning the validity of your worldview. None of us like having a mirror held up to our prejudices.

I must say it's so nice to be told what I think and what I understand and then having words put into my mouth. Yeah, thanks for that Flatpack .

flatpack, nancy66* and the rest of you come back.

I'm missing your well-informed contributions

And obviously Claig's too.

Bit confused at this thread, mumsnet has been cunting and fucking and so on happily for years, but now straight reported speech of another word is ruthlessly censored?

Not sure why, a quick search shows that the word appears on Mumsnet hundreds of times in various threads.

NovackNGood Fri 08-Jun-12 16:41:32

They are not cutting anything from the genuine disabled. FACT

I don't think anything will give me a bigger laugh this weekend, so roll on Monday.

Seriously though, where is your evidence?

I love it when the genuinely ignorant are allowed out.

Obviously Xenia I'm ignorant and poorly educated, because I identify myself as a lefty. Just be assured that at least I am not remotely interested in enriching myself at your expense. Unlike the Tories, who only care about what's in it for them.

If we carry on with the current economic model, in ten years we'll be where the USA is. Mass repossessions under armed guard, more inequality, more poverty, less social mobility, massive use of workfare. You, as an intelligent person, will obviously welcome this. I, as a thicko, don't. I don't want my children to think that going to a foodbank is normal: I don't want them to get into multiple thousands of pounds worth of debt just to waste away on the scrapheap.

The Conservatives have always been better at caring for the poor in society than the left. We are very lucky to have them.

We certainly need to live within our means as a nation. Most women who are often in charge of family budgets are aware of that so have a natural tendency to the right and of course the policies of the right make the most sense. All will be well. There is no party though which really represents my views. Labour proposed 20% cuts and the Tories 25%. There is nothing much between them. Labour only got power in the 80s when it stole Tory policies.

This Government has not started in any kind of way to cut back the frontiers of the state. We still have much much more state provision than we ever had. We have more not fewer quangos and more are being created. We have more not fewer laws, despite the promises and we have more and more complex tax and benefits. We need wholesale radical reform but there is no stomach for that....actually rather nice that I end up in agree with NT although on opoposite ends of the scale. Anyway back to earning a crust on a Saturday morning as a single mother of 5.

The Conservatives have always been better at caring for the poor in society than the left. We are very lucky to have them.

no they are not.

Xenia must live in a different country to me

So in your world Xenia cutting benefits for the poor and disabled whilst bailing out private companies is 'caring for the poor'? Righto. Please explain to someone ignorant why cutting funding to Jobcentre Plus and spending money on private providers like Tomorrow's People, A4E, Maximus etc to do a worse job is helping anyone but already rich tories? Remember to keep your reply brief and simple, 'cos I'm not as educated or as clever as you.

We certainly need to live within our means as a nation

We could do, but your mate Giddyup keeps bailing out the very banks that caused the mess the country's in. Not to mention 'loaning' money to the IMF so they can fuck more countries over whilst ensuring the banks get their money back.

The Tory attitude is Poor people: know your place.

Here's a prime example of the nasty party helping the poor. People who rioted in Tottenham over the racist shooting of Mark Duggan go to prison. Person who oversaw the demise of a massive bank by loaning money to people who could never afford to pay it back has his knighthood taken away and his pension ringfenced at only half a million quid a year. Why is it that those commiting those fraudulent acts not only keep their jobs but get massive bonuses for fucking the economy over, whilst small retailers are forced to shut as they cannot compete with Tesco et al? That's another example of the Torycunts looking after the poor.

The law is the law. We all know who caused the financial crisis - silly people borrowing what they could not afford ie the poor. They are not children who need protecting from a nanny state. They are adults who must stand on their own two feet. Thank goodness we have Conservatives in power. The poor will do all the better for it.

pmsl yes of cause Xenia
the poor will be better off, they will just rot.
so all the cuts targeting the disabled are fine in your book?
not the shortsighted con they really are.
( will end up costing more in the long run as families will fall apart due to poverty and disable people will end up in residential care, which is much more expensive)

We all know who caused the financial crisis - silly people borrowing what they could not afford ie the poor

Yes because the banks were so vulnerable to those theiving peasants taking their mortgages

FFS.

It's easy to sneer at the less well off when you're better off.

How will families fall apart due to poverty? It's the benefits system that has caused families to fall apart.

As far as residential care "being more expensive than benefits", you don't understand. If there is no money, there is no residential care. Disabled people will be out on the street. I don't think this should be allowed to happen. Do you?

Xenia knows all about being poor being a single patent with 5 children obviously. I bet those milk tokens came in handy.

How has the benefits system caused families to fall apart?

The disabled are not getting benefits cut. The fakers and the work-shy are being tested and no longer will be able to defraud the rest of us whilst the genuinely disabled will still get their handouts.

The poor need to learn that they are not entitled to sit at home and take take take from society without making any attempt to put anything in.

Repossession means that the owner is taking back their property that someone is illegally occupying. Why should a private owner or company have to subsidies the living arrangements of the feckless.

Novack, perhaps you could explain to the terminally ill that they are not actually dying, but merely work-shy? And would you like to repeat it to the widow of a man with cancer, thrown off disability benefits, who died before his appeal could be heard?

NovackNGood you are so wrong.
but then sadly a lot of people like you really do believe that.
I wish you were right, that way my severely disabled dd's life would not be at risk

JosephineCD no I don't think it should happen, but it will. take away the only money a disabled person has, deem them fit to work when they can't work.
end result person on the street

Oh dear Novack. You do realise that the DLA has the lowest level of fraud. Incredibly low. So the people they're taking off DLA are people that most likely actually need it.

In reply to NovackNGood. Are you trying to tell me this isn't happening?

How the Tories are helping the poor

Apparently only tasks that benefit the community fall under the remit of the 'Work' Programme. So how does giving what amounts to slave labour to major corporations benefit the community? It merely serves to cut their wage bill, and to reduce the amount of overtime already low paid workers can do, thus reducing their take home pay and therefore their spending power. That incompetent oaf Osbourne wants us to spend more on the High Street. How can that happen when pay is going down?

And don't get me started on quantitative easing...

Iggly they are being taken off it as they were fraudsters. Those who are able should not be getting a benefit for disabled. The stealth wealth distribution by use of liberally throwing benefits around at the feckless is thankfully coming to an end.

The genuinely disabled are not ending up on the streets. No where at all is that happening.

2shoes I am quite sure your daughters life is not at risk.

It is generally agreed we have not seen the worse of the Coalition CUTS yet. I thought one liberal member of the Cabinet would have walked by now.

Nicholas. what a gross mis-representation of the facts that guardian article is but then if that's there standard of journalism that no doubt explains why only 200 thousand people in the whole country actually read that socialist rag.