Am I misunderstanding these welfare changes or does it really mean that you could have two people with the same condition but only one eligible based purely on timing?
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Sadly yes. If the Tories had done this they'd be ripped to shreds. This government are showing they're almost as bad.
The Tories (were ripped to shreds in the last General Election), with a large majority would be steamrollering their Bills through, their members are all loyal to their leaders and support them, even if they don't agree with the details.
The Labour Party, with a large majority, (were given the task to manage the economic mess the Tories had created), are not a team, just a disparate group of individuals, who only back their own interests and are in no way loyal or supportive to their leaders or each other, hence the current shambles. Unless they get their act together this mess will just continue.
Pretty ridiculous that really. Not a good look for a government with a huge majority to not be able to pass their legislation a year in.
Or you could say that the MPs are standing up for their own moral point of view, and this is what we want from our elected representatives.
The problem here is how do you cut the welfare bill without making more people fall into poverty.
The government fixating on the budgets rather than the narrative. They are so scared of being labelled with financial incompetence that they are making changes that can hurt their core support.
I think we can all agree that since the pandemic there are lots of people who have fallen into the welfare trap - how do you get them out again and over what time frame is the problem the government is trying to square.
The problem here is how do you cut the welfare bill without making more people fall into poverty.
The government fixating on the budgets rather than the narrative. They are so scared of being labelled with financial incompetence that they are making changes that can hurt their core support.
I think we can all agree that since the pandemic there are lots of people who have fallen into the welfare trap - how do you get them out again and over what time frame is the problem the government is trying to square.
This is 100 % correct
Elected politicians doing what they are elected for. This is how democracy should work.
Bob Vylan calls for death to the IDF and Kneecap call out support for Hamas and Hezbollah both proscribed terrorist organisations. Both situations are quite obviously an anti Israeli stance and condone violence against them. Thumwood though, is shocked at the response from a frenzied media and the government. Apparently it's an outrage and should never have gone to court. They should actually be applauded for their politics.
Thumwood has regularly made comments about Israel, one in particular could be deemed anti semitic and possibly illegal. Anything that is anti Israeli, even encouraging violence is acceptable and should go unpunished it would seem.
But go back a few weeks and Thumwood is surprised that the wife of an ex-Tory councillor got off so lightly for making similar hate posts. "Her comments were vile and she must pay the consequences".
One is an ex tory councillor's wife who get's 33 months for racist comments and got off lightly. The others are condoning death to Israeli's and should escape punishment.
The reason for this blatant hypocrisy is clear in the Thumwood book of principles.
Death to Israelis, even at the hands of terrorists is acceptable.
Both sets of comments are quite obviously unacceptable and if one is punishable then the other most certainly is too.
Thumwood has regularly made comments about Israel, one in particular could be deemed anti semitic and possibly illegal. Anything that is anti Israeli, even encouraging violence is acceptable and should go unpunished it would seem.
But go back a few weeks and Thumwood is surprised that the wife of an ex-Tory councillor got off so lightly for making similar hate posts. "Her comments were vile and she must pay the consequences".
One is an ex tory councillor's wife who get's 33 months for racist comments and got off lightly. The others are condoning death to Israeli's and should escape punishment.
The reason for this blatant hypocrisy is clear in the Thumwood book of principles.
Death to Israelis, even at the hands of terrorists is acceptable.
Both sets of comments are quite obviously unacceptable and if one is punishable then the other most certainly is too.
Anyone else seen the video of Rachel Reeves crying on the front bench at PMsQT?
Some are saying it was a response to something personal and others are suggesting that she is being dropped from the Chancellor role.
Apparently there were no words of support for her from Starmer in response to comments about the welfare bill.
https://youtube.com/shorts/j8Hk-LYnGiY?si=hXnEr4-JS3DB8Vv5
Some are saying it was a response to something personal and others are suggesting that she is being dropped from the Chancellor role.
Apparently there were no words of support for her from Starmer in response to comments about the welfare bill.
https://youtube.com/shorts/j8Hk-LYnGiY?si=hXnEr4-JS3DB8Vv5
I did watch the whole PMQ's and formed the impression that madam Badknockers was a typical Tory thug, proving the old adage, that empty vessels make most noise. Starmer certainly didn't show much support for his Chancellor, but maybe didn't think he needed too? I am also hoping that if MP's continue to block any attempts to save money, that it will end in the inevitable major tax rises, but as a tax paying pensioner, I hope it is the wealthy that take the hit.
IOAG
Um.......
You are clearly an Netanhayu apologist who has no problem with the IDF killing women and children.
I am opposed to racists and people who feel aggression against others is acceptable. Bob Vylan's comments are infantile and cartoonish but the intentions of opposing the actions of the IDF are shared by all normal and empathetic human beings. The IDF are no better than the SS or the Gestapo. I see no difference. These people willfully carry out atrocities and your post suggests that you are comfortable with this.
The wife of the Tory councillor is less odious but she is still citing aggression against non-white people.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Your opinions are borderline extremist.
Imp?
And so to clarify, in your view calling for a riot outside a court is fine if you make another statement afterwards saying something different?