George Osborne Gets Booed Handing Medals at the Paralympic Athletics Medal Ceremony

[ttosca]

The nation boos at the Tory scum:

Many many of us on the right are fed up with thie pathetic unreforming middle ground Government which is barely differetn from Labour which had proposed 20% cust whilst this one supposedly is implementing 25%. There is no small state party sadly at present. The Tories have not managed even if they are really trying to achieve anything smaller. Nor have they reduced our spending. It's not good

Why am I being asked are the best interests of the disabled? That is far too general a question to ask. Presumably it depends on the disability.

I'd still like to know why you think religious groups should structure welfare and why people on benefits should be in workhouses (again, wow) or prison?

That is a genuine question, as it seems so...I don't know what word to use, so I'll go with 'bizarre' to me.

Abitwobblynow "2. But: who should provide that wealth redistribution, and how? THIS is the point of debate. 3. Should it be the state, OR should it be the local community? 4. HOW should that wealth redistribution, happen?"

"Why shouldn't welfare be dismantled? See point 4. Why shouldn't the NHS be dismanted? See point 4."

I find it highly unlikely that communities will be able to redistribute wealth, especially since communities tend to have similar socio-economic status- which means any thought of social justice can go screw itself. eg- if you happen to live in Kensington and Chelsea and have a severely disabled child, you'll probably be okay, if you live in Hackney where people don't have much to spare, you'll be screwed.

The reason that the state works, is because it brings with it the notions of 'rights' rather than the indignity of being a charity case for the needy. There is a bit of stability and relative certainty upon which people can build their lives in dignity.

If you let people give as they wish, not being enforced by state taxation, then selfishness, greed or overwork and underpayment will mean that there will not be enough money in the pot to give the vulnerable a dignified life as a right- it will be a lottery.

You cannot have a progressive society without state intervention.

Because you said that only the right have the best interests of the disabled at heart. Seems a big statement to make if you don't have any opinion on what those interests might be, though!

And I'm not sure you have any right to say the question is too general when it is a direct reference to a statement you made yourself! I guess your sweeping statement was too general too, then?

There are some good points on this thread, but when people who make those points also insist on shite like the Tories believe in workhouses, they piss all over any valid points they made quite frankly.

And then wonder why other people don't agree with them

To get back to the point of the thread, for FoodUnit who was talking about GO being booed, it was NOT anywhere near as vitriolic as the Tory haters on her would like to believe. You are all rubbing your hands together with glee about something that simply didn't happen. I was there, it was pantomime style booing, not nasty 'we hate you' type booing. Yes, there was crowd mentality. That's what happens when thousands of people are in one place focusing on the same thing. But that crowd mentality was about Mexican waves, throwing union flag beach balls around the stadium, supporting athletes by shouting and clapping even louder every time they came close to your bit of the stand. People may have booed, but they booed with smiles on their faces and laughed about it afterwards.

OS, I said the disabled are in safer hands with the Coalition than labour. The left always make a mess of things, the country does worse and everyone is worse off.

(The left might want to see this new TUC guide which is quite funny
kerchingmagazine.com/)

if my dd is safer under this tory government god help her.
I despair when people who do not walk the walk make silly false statements like that

Xenia, you were asked the question because you said this-

"Only the right can properly look after the disabled and disadvantaged and has their best interests at heart. Thankfully they are currently in power."

Perhaps you could answer it?

There are some good points on this thread, but when people who make those points also insist on shite like the Tories believe in workhouses, they piss all over any valid points they made quite frankly.

And then wonder why other people don't agree with them hmm

There is absolutely no doubt that the Tories would like to return to society to a mythical 'golden era' in the past, somewhere between the Victorian and Edwardian era.

This isn't prejudice. It's something that's quite apparent from the policies which they have always stood for, which attack workers rights, women's reproductive rights, the poor, and now the disabled. Jeremy Hunt, on record as saying the NHS was a mistake and who wants it disabled is now the Health Secretary.

It's all a bit of a sick joke.

What do you think a Tory society would look like? If the Tories (at least those to the right of centre of the Tory party) had free reign to enact all their regressive policies, what kind of society would we have?

My guess is that we would live in a society without the NHS, without unions, without the minimum wage, without the right of women to have abortions, no welfare state and therefore no safety net, and little or no immigration, to name but a few things...

Is that really the kind of society in which you wish to live?

xenia' this is you at 17.53 last night, in fact:

Only the right can properly look after the disabled and disadvantaged and has their best interests at heart. Thankfully they are currently in power

I despair. Yes, I admit I was a teensy bit rude to Dawndonna when I yawned at her - that was my bad, but I was really starting to find her sniping rather tiresome. I also find her language rather offensive now. For where I am, I am very grateful to my mother most and my teachers next, without whose support I would not have been able to get there.

Blu, your first assertion is correct. When I refer to malingerers I am referring to those claiming any benefits who are not entitled to them based on the rules - is that explicit enough?

Yes, I agree that medical science has meant that people who would previously have died are living longer now (myself among them, my uncle died from the same condition in the early 60s because no one knew what was wrong with him), but that does mean that because they have survived they are automatically condemned to living on benefits for the rest of their lives - a sad waste that would be. What about the advances in treatments for diabetics for example which means they can live almost normal lives now?

No, I still cannot see where else I have been rude (other than the yawn), and I am pretty sure that I don't have a personality disorder, .

"shite like the Tories believe in workhouses, they piss all over any valid points they made quite frankly."

I should have been clear - these are workhouses by stealth - imprisoning the poor for various poverty-related offences and using them for slave labour. I imagine that in a situation of dissolved state intervention and reliance on charities, there will be many who slip through the net, or are simply turned away because there are not the charity resources available - ripe for exploitation. If there is not some virtuous workhouses by another name set up to house these families, I wonder what the tory plan would be to deal with this part of the population?

I know tories wouldn't like to have to step over them sleeping in the doorways of the buildings they leave and enter, so probably harsher 'public nuisance' and 'loitering' offences dealt out to imprison them to justify putting them into slave labour.

Xenia-

OS, I said the disabled are in safer hands with the Coalition than labour. The left always make a mess of things, the country does worse and everyone is worse off.

Unlikely, seeing as 32 disabled people are dying every week as a result of coalition policies:

blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html

I think disabled people are in a better position to judge their own welfare under Coalition policies compared with Labour, and it seems to me that they are very clearly against the way the Coalition is treating disabled people.

www.dpac.uk.net/

Why don't you email dpac and ask them what they think about the Coalition policies w.r.t. disabled people?

How many dips has this recession has now? Losing count a bit! If this isn't a mess, I don't know what is!

Sorry, should read, does not mean,

Those of you who think the disabled are better looked after under the coalition have absolutely no idea what is happening at a local authority level and the cuts to those services which are relied upon

One of my better lines... Only the right can properly look after the disabled and disadvantaged and has their best interests at heart. Thankfully they are currently in power". I answered it. I said the right are better at managing the economy, ensuring the country has the money to help those disabled who need it. Loads of people who voted for the coaltion are disabled. Political views are not the same for everyone just because they have a disability.

So its basically about the same as if you had said, say, 'only the right care about woodcutters and people with curly hair and has their best interests at heart', insofar as woodcutters, curly people, the disabled and the disadvantaged all fall under the wider definition 'people in this country'? Seems a little specious, but thanks for clarifying!

So with the money they are ensuring the country has got, what do you think their plans are for 'helping those disabled who need it', or what should they be? Will this money they're ensuring we've got come from savings in DLA?

sammypaws "For where I am, I am very grateful to my mother most and my teachers next, without whose support I would not have been able to get there."

Right, now we've got that straight, spare a thought for those who aren't supported or are in fact undermined by the very people you'd assume would support them, and for those who are abused and exploited too.

What do you suggest to assist the 'determination' of such people?

Oh right! A workhouse by stealth....... Silly me, I shudo have known that the word workhouse doesn't actually mean workhouse at all, but instead something completely different.

I'll know better next time.

I'm sorry foodunit, no one has a magic wand, but I suppose you could look to those people who have grown up in childrens' homes or in care and managed to get somewhere - Neil Morrissey, Marilyn Monroe, Tom Monaghan etc. Those are just a few of the famous ones - and I am not saying that you need to be a 'celebrity' in order to be considered to have done something with your life.

I am sure that there are plenty of other non-celebrities with similar backgrounds.

Surely, if a child is being abused they should be in care, or am I missing something?

I'll know better next time.

Good, so when the 'philanthropic vocational social housing' scheme or some such thing is suggested by the tories, you'll remember this exchange.

Surely, if a child is being abused they should be in care, or am I missing something?

1. The childrens act means continuity of parenting is considered, since removal from the family is not always best.
2. Care & social services require adequate state funding and regulation, without which they are ripe for abuse and exploitation. History tells a very sorry tale and there are many adults walking around like ghosts today, in and out of prison, who have been through that 'care' system.
3. Not all abuse, especially emotional and mental abuse is picked up.