[Closed] Another Tory Gaffe

as long as its not illegal

Probably won't be many times I say this, but I'm in agreement. I have no problem with Flight saying what he said. As I said, I find it comforting to hear a Tory talk in such language.

I would have a more serious problem with freely expressed language to incite racial hatred. It seems as if kennyp doesn't though. Fair dues.

Yeah OK, the guy was lying............perish the thought that a Tory government should carry out swingeing spending cuts which they had failed to mention before a general election......but still

No swingeing cuts in first year, says David Cameron

Quote :

"A Conservative government would not make "swingeing cuts" to public spending during its first year, party leader David Cameron has said." January 2010

maybe they didn't realise the extent of the problem

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor

"Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said: 'Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left,' which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting."

Nonk - rubbish - there is research done on this and this myth is comprehensivly demolished
bigndaft that top quote is the exact reason i had to take tj up on this,he uses it for every debate he takes part in and it bores me to tears.

No, it's because he's a professional politician.

Ergo, it was unacceptable language to use [i]as a politician[/i]. If I heard a bloke talking like that in the pub, I'd think to myself "not my type of person" and be on my way. If I heard my MP saying it, I'd let her know what I thought of her for doing so.

TJ I hope you answer this.

Tim - I don't understand how you are disadvantaged. You get offered an appropriate property to your needs. I get offered **** all. Am I disadvantaged?
Why do you want a property greater than your needs? properties aere in short suply since the sell off of council houses so must be allocated on a basis of need.

the point was that we werent offered a property for 3 years, and then only a private let that we have to subsidise by use of the Discretionary Housing Payment (ie they dont pay our full rent)..

we were assesed as having a need for a two bed property, as my wife has noisy breathing aids and i occasionaly need to sleepmmmm

a single parent family with a child (for example) are given preference for 2 bed houses (i have been told by a council official that we would not ever get a house as these were always (and as council policy), given to families with children). and when you consider that northampton council have lots of two bed houses and virtually no 2 bed bungalows/flats then.....

having a child gets you a house free from the council in northampton.

So answer me this TJ

In northampton, how is having children whilst on benefits, not a potential means to get a house?

put this in one of your graphs....

disabled wife - 3+ years wait and nothing

1 kid, immediate housing at highest priority..

nonk - Member
bigndaft that top quote is the exact reason i had to take tj up on this,he uses it for every debate he takes part in and it bores me to tears.

I ask because I'm apparently an intellectual coward or something like that

I can feel the internat slowing down as the desperate search of online research goes on 😉

big_n_daft - Member

maybe they didn't realise the extent of the problem

Rubbish, Cameron and Clegg used it as a stick to bash Labour with during the election.

I just wish they'd stop apologizing after the fact. Just once I'd love to hear them say, "yes, I said it, and I damm well meant it, now either do something about it or shut the hell up". Labour, Liberal or Conservative I'm not arsed, just say what you really think!

rubbish, if they had been given this before the election even GB would have been at the job centre instead of taking money under false pretences whilst writing his new book

"Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said: 'Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left,' which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting."

Tim - not to make light of your wifes illness but the council has a series of criteria to decide need and allocates houses on the basis of need, I don't see anything wrong with this.

I don't really understand your point. Do you think you should be a higher priority that a family with children?

Big and daft - I couldn't find the research - I did provide some quotes from people who actually know about this stuff and I have read reports on the research but I could not find it.

NO one has actually come up with any decent evidence that people do have children to get more benefits. Just a load os f stories and tabloid trash.

maybe they didn't realise the extent of the problem

Ah......the Tories hadn't understood the state of the UK economy.........that's the reason !!!

And they only realised, according to you, when they found a "one-sentence letter" ! 😀

So why was that big_n_daft .......weren't they paying attention ? The state of the economy isn't a state secret you know, and Tories were in parliament, sat on Select Committees, etc.

They really should pay more attention.....what were they doing for goodness sake ?

Anyway, we digress........why was Lord Flight sacked/deselected by the Tory leader, for claiming that a Tory government could make more spending cuts than they had promised in an election campaign ?

Big and daft - I couldn't find the research - I did provide some quotes from people who actually know about this stuff and I have read reports on the research but I could not find it.

well tj acording to your very own rules of debate that my freind is not worth a toss then is it?

TandemJeremy - Member
Tim - not to make light of your wifes illness but the council has a series of criteria [b]to decide how they prioitise need[/b] and allocates houses on the basis of [b]that assessment of need[/b], I don't see anything wrong with this.

fixed it for you

Big and daft - I couldn't find the research - I did provide some quotes from people who actually know about this stuff and I have read reports on the research but I could not find it.

ahhh the old absence of evidence is not evidence of absence defence 😉

but hold on....

NO one has actually come up with any decent evidence that people do have children to get more benefits. Just a load os f stories and tabloid trash.

so you haven't seen any then? how extensively have you researched this subject, which academic journal databases have you scoured?

If someone finds a paper will you eat your fedora? 😉

ernie

So why was that big_n_daft .......weren't they paying attention ? The state of the economy isn't a state secret you know, and Tories were in parliament, sat on Select Committees, etc.

They really should pay more attention.....what we they doing for goodness sake ?

they were in opposition, no red boxes filled nightly by civil servants for them. No details of the last minute "spend everything" labour irresponsibility etc etc

[i]I would have a more serious problem with freely expressed language to incite racial hatred. It seems as if kennyp doesn't though. Fair dues.[/i]

To be honest, yes I do. I think the principal of being able to express an opinion is more important than the opinion itself, no matter how objectionable it may be.

Where's Elfin?

Not like him to miss the liberal knicker wetting outrage bus? 😛

[i]Ergo, it was unacceptable language to use as a politician. If I heard a bloke talking like that in the pub, I'd think to myself "not my type of person" and be on my way. If I heard my MP saying it, I'd let her know what I thought of her for doing so.[/i]

In the current climate yes it is seen as unacceptable. What I'm saying is that I think the current climate is wrong and that it should be acceptable. Not everyone agrees with that which is fair enough, but it's my opinion.

Kenny - as a private person you can express any idea you want - as an elected representative you are rightly limited. Free speech still exists. He could have insisted he was right and would have had to resign to do so

politicians over the years have done this.

they were in opposition, no red boxes filled nightly by civil servants for them.

But according to you, a joke one-sentence note left by a departing Labour comedian, was all that was needed 😀

And you obviously didn't bother reading the link I posted ......... in it, Cameron appears to have a very good grasp of the scale of the government debt. Despite that, he promises no "swingeing cuts".

Of course some cynics might suggest that Cameron only promised no swingeing cuts because he wanted to win the election, and he knew damn well that voters would not back swingeing Tory cuts.

Do you think there could be any truth in that ?

Or do you think it's out of the question ?

as an elected representative you are rightly limited.

Howard Flight is not an elected representative though!

What TJ said. I'm finding the brick wall quite sore on my head now. The free speech argument has been done over and over again. We rightly limit the language that can be used in public. If you don't like that law, write to your MP. With any luck it'll be a Tory one. They seem to like saying fairly offensive shite. Including taking the piss out of dwarves too.

they were in opposition, no red boxes filled nightly by civil servants for them. No details of the last minute "spend everything" labour irresponsibility etc etc

So despite this 'last minute' spend Gordo still hung on to Downing Street as long as he could?

Condems will not be able to use the 'Oh but it's because Labour blah blah blah' bull for very much longer.

Howard Flight is not an elected representative though!

Gosh..............that's a relief.

[i]as an elected representative you are rightly limited. Free speech still exists[/i]

But surely TJ, those two statements contradict each other? I think elected representatives should have the right of free speech (lies excepted). If the majority disagree then they won't be re-elected. My concern is that freedom of speech is slowly being eroded.

Edited. Thought Z-11 was quoting me but it was TJ.

[i]The free speech argument has been done over and over again.[/i]

Only because it's a principal worth defending. It's not defending the actual views expressed.

So despite this 'last minute' spend Gordo still hung on to Downing Street as long as he could?

Erm, the Tories slapped a complete ban on the alleged "last minute" Labour spending Lifer (see school buildings etc).

So despite big_n_daft's ranting, that is pretty much a non-argument.

My concern is that freedom of speech is slowly being eroded.

Dear Editor (of the Daily Mail)...

Kenny - he can say whatever he wants. However some views are incompatible with being in the government or other public positions. Therefore he can resign his public position and say as he wants.

TJ - you are losing your argument mojo, read my posts pls

I don't really understand your point. Do you think you should be a higher priority that a family with children?

aside from the fact that imo having a family is a lifestyle choice and a disability isnt (unless you are one of those odd people who like to cut bits off of themselves, and i am not ruling anything out in your case :-))

I would be satisfied with the same priority as a family, or single parent with kid.

Because we are lower priority, we have absolutely no way of being housed by the council unless northampton runs out of single parents, and going by my local Asda today that is not going to happen anytime soon.

We were lower priority even when housed in a private let unable to move with damp and mould which we had specialist and occupational health evidence that it was hasten my wifes decline....

But leaving aside my housing history and back to the question I asked which was ,

how is having children whilst on benefits, not a potential means to get a house?

If a child guarantees preferential housing treatment, and if you have a system where all a single parent teenager has to do is get their parent to make them "homeless" with their kid (or write a letter to that effect), and they imediately walk into housing, what do you think they are doing?

To say that teeneagers do not have children to aid their housing and benefits claims is very shortsighted and naive.

And you ask for evidence, what do you expect these kids to do, tell the benefits agencies who compile your oft quoted stats that they kept their kid cos mum said they would get a house?

I claim benefits as a carer, I spend an unhealthy amount of time in the council offices with a wide cross section of people and I know several specific examples of 17 year olds who openly did this.

Given the choice of sitting on JSA at mum and dads or sitting on JSA + child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc and feeding the kids for next to nothing, explain to me how this is not incentivising "breeding"?

I accept that this is not the norm in your world, but it is far more widespread than you seem to think.

I am far from a right wing Tory when it comes to the usual easy target benefits bashing, but you really could do with coming down my local council offices and talking to some people who are actually in this situation before you comment.

Bournemouth BNP? I thought it was Bournemouth UKIP?

Make up your mind, FFS!

Also, if you're going to sling around accusations of racism, at least try and find some supporting evidence. I'm amazed you haven't been snapped up for your own Guardian column. I bet you could churn out gems like this in your sleep:

'OMGZ! Racism towards meercats!!!1one!!eleven!!1'
http://tinyurl.com/ntbbub

# The teenage mothers came from a wide variety of educational and social backgrounds and were not the deprived group of popular mythology.

# Few of them expected to end up as lone parents, in council housing or dependent on social security benefits.

There was no evidence to suggest that women became pregnant to get council housing or social security benefits. Most of them had known little or nothing about housing policy or benefits before becoming pregnant and the little they had known was usually wrong.

http://www.psi.org.uk/news/pressrelease.asp?news_item_id=37

[i]Kenny - he can say whatever he wants. However some views are incompatible with being in the government or other public positions. Therefore he can resign his public position and say as he wants.

[/i]

I agree to an extent in that they have to think about the actual language they use (in this case, when you read what he actually said rather than the headlines, he expressed a perfectly valid view; my own opinion is that the world is over-populated and that everyone should be encouraged to breed less).

However I also think they are entitled to express any opinion they like, regardless of their position; "think the unthinkable" as is often quoted. The problem is that there are certain views that automatically trigger a knee-jerk reaction from the media and other politicians, and so any debate on the matter becomes almost impopssible.

That said, the debates on here, if they don't descend into silly name calling, are often much better and more intelligent than ones in the media in that people do tend to be able to exress controversial opinions without the risk of a public backlash. There have been quite a few times I've had my thoughts on a subject altered by things people (sometimes yourself TJ) have written.

Damilola Taylor's dad was just on Radio5 and said what he thought was the problem with Afro Carribean boys today. Nicky Campbell pointed out that anybody white person who dared to say what he'd just said would have been pilloried as a racist. Mr Taylor said, yes, but I just said what was really happening.

I'm not known for my tact and sensitivity, and I too think it's ridiculous that you can't say what you've seen with your own eyes without being branded a bigot.

TJ i have had a ponder on what was said last night and to be honest with you i would like an explanation from you on something.

Prey tell - whos side does she fight on? Let me guess. its not the claimants side is it.

i am sure you will set me straight.

TJ:

[i]The research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) as one of 17 projects in the Population and Household Change programme . It is based on in-depth interviews with[b] 84 women who had had their first babies in 1995[/b] when aged between 16 and 19, and with 24 fathers and 41 grandparents of the babies. The study took place in Hackney, Leeds and Solihull which were selected to represent areas with high, medium and relatively low teenage pregnancy rates.[/i]

So, tiny sample and based on things that happened under the previous tory government... hardly backs up your point does it?

what he said was a total nothing blown out of all proportion by the media

the views of the raving left on this thread are disgusting for the level of side tracking, rabbit holing, pointless pedentry and speed to resort to baseless insults

still its not a surprise, you are/were all allowed to vote

Nonk - I can see why he reached that conclusion.

BigJohn, what have you seen with your own eyes? If you're worried that people might find it bigoted then ask youself why.

Zulu - its the only bit of actual objective evidence on this thread. It may be poor quality in your view but its a darn sight better than the unsubstantiated rantings that most are using to back their argument.

lifer
do tell.

Zulu-Eleven

So, tiny sample and based on things that happened under the previous tory government... hardly backs up your point does it?

Nothing to counter it except hyperbole and heresay though?

no explanation tj?
thought not.

Nonk

You were very unclear as to what your wife did. From the limited information I had I assumed she was working to fight benefit appeals or a similar role.

You were quoting here with what appeared to me to be a very partial and biased view.

Given more information then obviously my assumption is wrong

your assumtion was based on nothing at all.

Lifer - Member

Nonk - I can see why he reached that conclusion.

My assumption was based on what you had posted.

As TJ, from what you posted.