However you spin it, withdrawal of a benefit is not murder or genocide. By that rationale, all governments pre-welfare state were genocidal. If I get sacked and top myself, my employer did not murder me.

Not murder or genocide but “grave and systematic violations” of disabled people’s rights, according to the UN.

Two people have answered the question now, Airtragic and Flash.

Any more?

Dp.

Because they pissed off abroad
[/quote]

Because if they’d stayed here and paid their taxes they wouldn’t be?

(no – don’t answer that – I know you won’t anyway, so might as well make the point now)

Airtragic ducked the question by not accepting the two premises.

Also you haven’t answered it yourself, and nor has Grum.

What do you want me to qualify?

I don’t agree with the way people with disabilities are being ‘assessed’.
I don’t agree with benefit cuts for the most vulnerable people in OUR society.

I agree with the proposed Labour tax rises.

Those who can best bear the burden should do so.

Which bit is unclear?

“What do you want me to qualify?”

Just explain ‘how’. That was your question. You can’t get out of it by refusing to accept the premise.

EDIT: Corrected ‘can’t’ typo

Well well.

Despite all the attention on local elections as a test of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the Conservatives have lost more council seats than Labour

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-elections-2016-results-in-full-council-seats-conservative-tory-labour-jeremy-corbyn-a7019041.html

How what?

It was your question, just answer it. How.

Check the date ulysse

Date: Sunday 8 May 2016 12:24 BST

Well well indeed.

My own fault, in my defence there’s a 3 year old balancing on my arm as I read newfeeds…

I suppose the lesson is to beware of conformation bias

outofbreath – Member
It was your question, just answer it. How.

Here is the question again:

I asked you and the other people contributing to this thread

“…. why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?”

It’s a very simple question.
If you aren’t prepared to answer it or engage in any kind of debate regarding it, you could at least have the courage and manners to say so.

It’ll save me the bother of
a) Asking it again.
b) Reporting you for trolling.

Rusty, as I said pages back, complicit, either by ignorance or design.
And for the last few pages ignorance is no defence

I apologise, Rusty Spanner. When I said ‘How’ I meant ‘Why’. Entirely my mistake. Now explain ‘why’, please, without ducking the question by saying you don’t accept the premise.

If you aren’t prepared to answer it or engage in any kind of debate regarding it, you could at least have the courage and manners to say so.

I would say your expectations are too high if you think everyone will answer a question or let you know they don’t want to engage in it.

Some people don’t want to answer questions that will give away what they are so you have to assume (if you haven’t already from past history)

Some people don’t want to answer questions that will give away what they are

I think his responses have clarified that quite eloquently.
🙂

I notice you also haven’t answered the question, Kerley. Perhaps you’d like to explain why.

I expect it’s because nobody understands exactly what the question you’re asking is – you could just type it out in full rather than drip feeding…

Come on Rusty, don’t be shy, tell why.

I think it would help if you posted the question you’d like answering OOB.

“…. why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?”

I notice you also haven’t answered the question, Kerley. Perhaps you’d like to explain why.

I don’t agree with the way people with disabilities are being ‘assessed’.
I don’t agree with benefit cuts for the most vulnerable people in OUR society.

I agree with the proposed Labour tax rises.

Those who can best bear the burden should do so.

A clear copy/paste but in total agreement.

I don’t really want it answering, I’m just teasing Rusty because he can’t answer it either.

In that case, whilst I can’t speak for all the people you’re challenging, I can give you a big hint – I don’t think any of them think that the cuts are justified or that the tax increase isn’t.

Though I presume you’re actually playing the sort of pedantic game here that ninfan likes, and will claim that isn’t an answer to the question 🙄

Keeley stop dodging the question. The question is ‘why’. You’re just ducking the question by saying you don’t accept the premise.

“I don’t think any of them think that the cuts are justified or that the tax increase isn’t.”

Which is just ducking the question by saying they don’t accept the premise.

“Though I presume you’re actually playing the sort of pedantic game here that ninfan likes, and will claim that isn’t an answer to the question”

I think there is an answer, you just have to make the case, without accepting it.

Here’s one for you then, oob – why is it justifiable to execute you? Don’t duck the question by claiming you don’t accept the premise.

It wasn’t my question, aracers, it was Rusty’s beartrap. I just got fed up with being asked to jump in it and decided to turn hunter.

…and yeah, I’m going to use the same escape trick as everyone else. I don’t accept the premise.

He’s said today he’s gonna scrap all hospital car parking charges.
Tomorrow he’s promising all 6yr old girls that Unicorns will be bred once Labour are re-elected.

He’s said today he’s gonna scrap all hospital car parking charges.

I know (sigh). I can’t believe that when the saw the local election results, knew that the tories were launching their manifesto today, etc that they thought “I know, I’ve got something which is really going to win this thing for us – hospital car park charges!”

For those not trying to be pedantic and clever, a totally acceptable answer to Rusty’s question is that the cuts weren’t acceptable and the tax increase is, it’s really only a trick question if you want to make it one. Is that what you’re trying to say there, oob? It really would help to be explicit – what makes you look like using an “escape trick” is continuing to bob and weave in exactly the way you still are. Spit it out – exactly what is your opinion? I’ll even make it easy and partially multiple choice (though only one option gets a really easy time):

1) I disagree with the cuts and agree with the tax increase
2) I agree with the cuts and the tax increase and justify the cuts because…
3) I disagree with the cuts and the tax increase and justify not having the tax increase because…
4) I agree with the cuts and disagree with the tax increase and justify that because…

“Unicorns”

Don’t knock it, in the insane auction of promises in the last days of the last election Cameron was promising unicorns and it worked for him. (To a degree.)

Dear god – right, if anyone sees me posting in any political threads on STW ever again can they please remind me to GTFO. I’m done.

I don’t know if it’s because I’m neither as emotionally involved with the Labour party or as determinedly against them as some on here. But like the BH thing I don’t think this is such a bad idea from an electoral perspective. Sure maybe there are bigger issues, but most people don’t understand the big issues, and this is a nice little thing which people will think is a good idea.

Tomorrow he’s promising all 6yr old girls that Unicorns will be bred once Labour are re-elected.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/19/labour-accidentally-offers-everyone-their-own-owl

🙂

1) I disagree with the cuts and agree with the tax increase
2) I agree with the cuts and the tax increase and justify the cuts because…
3) I disagree with the cuts and the tax increase and justify not having the tax increase because…
4) I agree with the cuts and disagree with the tax increase and justify that because…

5) I disagree with the cuts – the SNP got that right. I have no idea about the tax for high earners, the point of the revenue sweetspot is anyone’s guess. (Indeed, the only reason I posted on this thread yesterday was to work out how much Labour needed the income from the Higher earners and the FT article suggests not much so far.)

I saw a few positive remarks on Twitter too. I don’t get it.
IMO they need to clearly demonstrate day after day how they can afford to spend. How the tories are syphoning off money from tax payers to the wealthy and how they’ll stop it in a credible way.
To be honest their 95% tax freeze 5% tax increase was the closest they’ve come, but they need to join the dots and explain why £80,000 earners are going to pay this instead of increase tax avoidance activities or move abroad.

Whenever they talk about the NHS getting extra funds they also need to talk about how efficient and cheap the NHS is compared to the private healthcare of other countries, so that people can see that it’s wise spending.
Same with every other promise. Tell us how adding 10,000 police actually saves us money in insurance premiums, or whatever. Join the dots. Make people believe they have a firm grasp of the consequences!