Why do conservatives hate people?

First topic message reminder :

Ok, I get how conservatives selfishly grub onto money, and how they have a political philosophy of extreme individualism vs. social justice.

But here in America they can't just leave it at that. They have to go after poor people so vociferously. So it's not about protecting themselves or their money. It's about hating other people.

So why?

Tommy Monk wrote:A homeless single white British male gets the least help.


Although a council deposit bond is available to give to landlord as form of deposit instead of cash.



Bed sits (rooms in shared house) are easy to come by.


And everybody knows somebody who could put them up for a few days or couple weeks or so on couch or even sleeping on floor etc.



Homelessness is not a recent intention since Tory been in govt.





And let's not forget the annual housing benefit bill had doubled under labour to about 20 billion. Paid to house people who would otherwise be homeless, so don't pretend getting a roof over your head is not provided.

The amount paid out in HB went up under Labour but the number of claimants remained pretty stable. And the reason it went up was due to lack of social housing caused by the previous Tory government policy of allowing the social housing stock to be sold off for a song but denying local councils the right to use the proceeds from the sales to be used to replace what was was sold.
They left a huge gulf in what social housing was available to house people which effectively put control of the rented housing market into the hands of private sector landlords who were able to charge huge sums because the council faced a shortfall in housing availability.

You really don't have a clue.

How many more houses do we have now Iron?

Under the good years of Labour they must have built hundreds of thousands if not millions, right?

You could also ask - how many foreigners have been put in social housing, or started claiming HB in the last 15 years?

BigAndy9 wrote:How many more houses do we have now Iron?

Under the good years of Labour they must have built hundreds of thousands if not millions, right?

18 years of Tory rot had set in with councils left skint due to their policies. Hospitals, schools and the country's infrastructure had been left to tumble into terminal decay with the money all having gone down the tube. So where was the money going to come from to rebuild 18 years of neglect under the Tories? It'll take a very long time to repair all the damage they did and at least Labour made a start by removing the bar on councils using the proceeds of sales to build new housing stock but of course most of the good stuff had already gone.
The prigramme to build more social housing had started to produce results with more stock being built in the year before the financial collapse caused by the bankers than in any year of the previous Tory government or since Labour came to power in 1997.
When looking to pin the blame for all this please try and be objective by looking at what was the cause in the first place.

Anytime you look for political patterns, you have to look for causation.  This is confounded by the fact and in the US and UK we have 4 and 5 year cycles, respectively.  With such quick turn-arounds, we have the mendacious phenomenon of one party criticizing the other for its own self-induced problems.

In this country under the reckless policies of the Republican administration of Geo. W. Bush, we had one war after another.  During that very time--and Bee will verify this--I screamed about the economic dive we were heading into by these reckless polities of expensive war.  Vice President Richard Cheney responded to Paul O'Neil, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."  It's right here:  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

Of course, in October, 2008, President Geo. W. Bush had to go on the air to ask for extraordinary legislation in order to avoid the next Great Depression.  Today, we in the US have to live with a Republican caused $17-trillion deficit.

What do you hear from the Republicans today?  Ohhh...whoa...we are spending too much on people.  We are spending too much on education.  On school lunches.  On unemployment.  On Head Start for children.  On healthcare.  On job replacement.  On infrastructure.  On the whole safety net.  And what is their punch line: MY GOD!  WE HAVE A $17-TRILLION DEFICIT!!

No apologies.  No regrets.  The lying fooking arseholes caused all the problems and now want to shift the blame and use it for they're lying ammunition.

Never trust a Conservative or a Republican.  They lie even while they are fooking their aides and secretaries and giving interviews to CNN.

But, I return to my original question: why do Conservatives and Republicans hate people?  I understand they have so much lying to cover up for.  They have so much money grubbing they have to get accomplished for themselves.  And they have to justify their anti-humane ideology.  But, over and above this they need to hate people.  They need to stick it to the little guy.

Somehow it comes back to me that it is compensatory behavior.  Something they feel they must make up for.

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:How many more houses do we have now Iron?

Under the good years of Labour they must have built hundreds of thousands if not millions, right?

18 years of Tory rot had set in with councils left skint due to their policies. Hospitals, schools and the country's infrastructure had been left to tumble into terminal decay with the money all having gone down the tube. So where was the money going to come from to rebuild 18 years of neglect under the Tories? It'll take a very long time to repair all the damage they did and at least Labour made a start by removing the bar on councils using the proceeds of sales to build new housing stock but of course most of the good stuff had already gone.
The prigramme to build more social housing had started to produce results with more stock being built in the year before the financial collapse caused by the bankers than in any year of the previous Tory government or since Labour came to power in 1997.
When looking to pin the blame for all this please try and be objective by looking at what was the cause in the first place.

Good post Irn, I can't ever remember the Tories ploughing in as much money as Labour did, or education for that matter...

Funny Labour solely get the blame about the open door immigration issue...was there ever a closed door policy when the Tories were in office prior to that?..

Original Quill wrote:Anytime you look for political patterns, you have to look for causation.  This is confounded by the fact and in the US and UK we have 4 and 5 year cycles, respectively.  With such quick turn-arounds, we have the mendacious phenomenon of one party criticizing the other for its own self-induced problems.

In this country under the reckless policies of the Republican administration of Geo. W. Bush, we had one war after another.  During that very time--and Bee will verify this--I screamed about the economic dive we were heading into by these reckless polities of expensive war.  Vice President Richard Cheney responded to Paul O'Neil, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."  It's right here:  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

Of course, in October, 2008, President Geo. W. Bush had to go on the air to ask for extraordinary legislation in order to avoid the next Great Depression.  Today, we in the US have to live with a Republican caused $17-trillion deficit.

What do you hear from the Republicans today?  Ohhh...whoa...we are spending too much on people.  We are spending too much on education.  On school lunches.  On unemployment.  On Head Start for children.  On healthcare.  On job replacement.  On infrastructure.  On the whole safety net.  And what is their punch line: MY GOD!  WE HAVE A $17-TRILLION DEFICIT!!

No apologies.  No regrets.  The lying fooking arseholes caused all the problems and now want to shift the blame and use it for they're lying ammunition.

Never trust a Conservative or a Republican.  They lie even while they are fooking their aides and secretaries and giving interviews to CNN.

But, I return to my original question: why do Conservatives and Republicans hate people?  I understand they have so much lying to cover up for.  They have so much money grubbing they have to get accomplished for themselves.  And they have to justify their anti-humane ideology.  But, over and above this they need to hate people.  They need to stick it to the little guy.

Somehow it comes back to me that it is compensatory behavior.  Something they feel they must make up for.

You're right,their mindset is anti-humane and I just marvel at it. Sometimes their lack of empathy and hatred of others less fortunate than them is a wonder to behold.

I can't explain why they are like the way they are,I have wondered about it for many years.I am just thankful I am not like that.

The conservative outlook is akin to psychopathy (and no i don't mean Norman Bates !!  ),I mean the clinical definition.Psychopaths are ruthless,cunning and lacking in empathy and compassion,so are the conservatives.

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:A homeless single white British male gets the least help.
Although a council deposit bond is available to give to landlord as form of deposit instead of cash.
Bed sits (rooms in shared house) are easy to come by.
And everybody knows somebody who could put them up for a few days or couple weeks or so on couch or even sleeping on floor etc.
Homelessness is not a recent intention since Tory been in govt.
And let's not forget the annual housing benefit bill had doubled under labour to about 20 billion. Paid to house people who would otherwise be homeless, so don't pretend getting a roof over your head is not provided.

The amount paid out in HB went up under Labour but the number of claimants remained pretty stable. And the reason it went up was due to lack of social housing caused by the previous Tory government policy of allowing the social housing stock to be sold off for a song but denying local councils the right to use the proceeds from the sales to be used to replace what was was sold.
They left a huge gulf in what social housing was available to house people which effectively put control of the rented housing market into the hands of private sector landlords who were able to charge huge sums because the council faced a shortfall in housing availability.
You really don't have a clue.

Number of claimants remained the same?

Do you have some evidence to back this up?


And the money raised from right to buy was supposed to be used to build more housing but labour councils took the cash and wasted it.


And THE labour govt opened the borders up to mass immigration but didn't build enough housing to accommodate all the new arrivals, that is why there is a housing shortage.

So housing costs rose and So did rents, making the cost of living roar while wages were driven down by the influx of cheap labour.


And the councils in the mean time handed the keys for social housing to immigrants.



Don't tell me there was never homelessness during labours13 years?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:
The amount paid out in HB went up under Labour but the number of claimants remained pretty stable. And the reason it went up was due to lack of social housing caused by the previous Tory government policy of allowing the social housing stock to be sold off for a song but denying local councils the right to use the proceeds from the sales to be used to replace what was was sold.
They left a huge gulf in what social housing was available to house people which effectively put control of the rented housing market into the hands of private sector landlords who were able to charge huge sums because the council faced a shortfall in housing availability.
You really don't have a clue.

Number of claimants remained the same?

Do you have some evidence to back this up?


And the money raised from right to buy was supposed to be used to build more housing but labour councils took the cash and wasted it.


And THE labour govt opened the borders up to mass immigration but didn't build enough housing to accommodate all the new arrivals, that is why there is a housing shortage.

So housing costs rose and So did rents, making the cost of living roar while wages were driven down by the influx of cheap labour.


And the councils in the mean time handed the keys for social housing to immigrants.



Don't tell me there was never homelessness during labours13 years?

Carry on showing just how ignorant you are. Thatcher STOPPED Councils from using the money from the selling of council houses to build more houses.


The policy proved immediately popular, and indeed Labour had previously engaged in it on a small scale. Some local Labour-controlled councils were opposed, but the legislation prevented them from blocking purchases, and gave them half the proceeds.[6] Sales were much higher in the South and East of England, than in the inner city of London and in the North.[7]

Half the proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared, rather than being able to spend it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high such as London and the south-east of England.

200,000 council houses were sold to their tenants in 1982, and by 1987, more than 1,000,000 council houses in Britain had been sold to their tenants, although the number of council houses purchased by tenants declined during the 1990s.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy

And when were the debts cleared and housing was being built again?


There wasn't a housing shortage in the 80's and 90's.


This started after labour took govt and opened the borders to mass immigration.

And......


From your link.....



Individual local authorities have always had the ability to sell council houses to their tenants, but until the early 1970s such sales were extremely rare.
The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in its manifesto for the 1959 General Election which it subsequently lost.[2] Later, the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council of the late 1960s was persuaded by Horace Cutler, its Chairman of Housing, to create a general sales scheme. Cutler disagreed with the concept of local authorities as providers of housing and supported a free market approach. GLC housing sales were not allowed during the Labour administration of the mid-1970s but picked up again once Cutler became Leader in 1977. They proved extremely popular, and Cutler was close to Margaret Thatcher (a London MP) who made the right to buy council housing a Conservative Party policy nationally.
In the meantime, council house sales to tenants began to increase. Some 7,000 were sold to their tenants during 1970, but in two years that figure soared to more than 45,000 in 1972.[3]

Tommy Monk wrote:And......


From your link.....



Individual local authorities have always had the ability to sell council houses to their tenants, but until the early 1970s such sales were extremely rare.
The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in its manifesto for the 1959 General Election which it subsequently lost.[2] Later, the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council of the late 1960s was persuaded by Horace Cutler, its Chairman of Housing, to create a general sales scheme. Cutler disagreed with the concept of local authorities as providers of housing and supported a free market approach. GLC housing sales were not allowed during the Labour administration of the mid-1970s but picked up again once Cutler became Leader in 1977. They proved extremely popular, and Cutler was close to Margaret Thatcher (a London MP) who made the right to buy council housing a Conservative Party policy nationally.
In the meantime, council house sales to tenants began to increase. Some 7,000 were sold to their tenants during 1970, but in two years that figure soared to more than 45,000 in 1972.[3]

Councils could sell housing stock if the wanted to. The Tories made it mandatory that they do it with 'right to buy' and they banned councils from using the proceeds to build replacement social housing.

The number of claimants remained stable under Labour.

The number of housing benefit claimants stayed roughly the same between 2003-2007, but payments to landlords rose year-on-year.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/housing-benefit-bill-still-rising-under-coaliton

You don't really have a clue and you're just making things up as you go along.

That's only 3-4 years, and the right to buy didn't cause the housing shortage.
Massive immigration inn under labour and not building caused the housing shortage.

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And......


From your link.....



Individual local authorities have always had the ability to sell council houses to their tenants, but until the early 1970s such sales were extremely rare.
The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in its manifesto for the 1959 General Election which it subsequently lost.[2] Later, the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council of the late 1960s was persuaded by Horace Cutler, its Chairman of Housing, to create a general sales scheme. Cutler disagreed with the concept of local authorities as providers of housing and supported a free market approach. GLC housing sales were not allowed during the Labour administration of the mid-1970s but picked up again once Cutler became Leader in 1977. They proved extremely popular, and Cutler was close to Margaret Thatcher (a London MP) who made the right to buy council housing a Conservative Party policy nationally.
In the meantime, council house sales to tenants began to increase. Some 7,000 were sold to their tenants during 1970, but in two years that figure soared to more than 45,000 in 1972.[3]

Councils could sell housing stock if the wanted to. The Tories made it mandatory that they do it with 'right to buy' and they banned councils from using the proceeds to build replacement social housing.

The number of claimants remained stable under Labour.

The number of housing benefit claimants stayed roughly the same between 2003-2007, but payments to landlords rose year-on-year.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/housing-benefit-bill-still-rising-under-coaliton

You don't really have a clue and you're just making things up as you go along.

Mattie makes Drinky look clever, and that takes some doing!    

All his so called 'facts' can be disproved and he doesn't even try and defend them, because he can't, just waffles on with the same old bigotted rubbish day after day. He's a complete and total waste of oxygen.

Tommy Monk wrote:That's only 3-4 years, and THE right to buy didn't abuse the housing shortage.


Massive immigration inn under labour and not building caused the housing shortage.

Of course the right to buy abused the housing shortage - it caused it because councils had to sell off their housing stock but were not allowed to use the proceeds to replace them. 18 years of rot. What is it about that that you do not understand?

Massive numbers of immigrants coming here were caused by Thatcher and major joining the EU allowing free movement across our borders. What is it about that that you do not understand?

Original Quill wrote:
Ok, I get how conservatives selfishly grub onto money, and how they have a political philosophy of extreme individualism vs. social justice.

But here in America they can't just leave it at that.  They have to go after poor people so vociferously.  So it's not about protecting themselves or their money.  It's about hating other people.

So why?

  

MAYBE it's because of that 'quantum leap' that an otherwise reasonable person would have to make, so as to lower themselves to vote for their Tory, fascist or corporatist candidates ???

THEY might vote for the Righteous Whingers collectives as a once off, so as to "punish" a former regime that's let them down badly..

HOWEVER, to repeatedly keep on inflicting a conservative government on any country means that a significant proportion of its citizenry has lost all sense of decency, humanity, equality, fairness, charity, and respect and caring for their neighbours and community, the environment and their country as a whole.   

If someone lives in a council place, What shortage is caused if they rent it or own it And are going to stay there for 30-40 years?
Plus the councils could build more after they paid their debts, that didn't take long.
And immigration was minimal in 80's and 90's compared to under labour when the opened the flood gates, and there wasn't a housing shortage until then.
What bit of that do you not understand?
And Sassy, all you have just posted is waffle.
You can't argue the points so just go into another personal attack.

Tommy Monk wrote:If someone lives in a council place, What shortage is caused if they rent it or own it And are going to stay there for 30-40 years?
Plus the councils could build more after they paid their debts, that didn't take long.
And immigration was minimal in 80's and 90's compared to under labour when the opened the flood gates, and there wasn't a housing shortage until then.
What bit of that do you not understand?
And Sassy, all you have just posted is waffle.
You can't argue the points so just go into another personal attack.

Your a liar, I showed you that councils were not allowed to use the money from selling houses, which they only got half off.   Every single 'fact' you have stated has been shown to be a lie and dredged up in your tiny mind to try and prove something unprovable, because the facts show the opposite.

I honestly don't know why we bother to even discuss anything with you, you don't want facts, you just want your bigotry.   Well, my time's to precious to waste on your tripe, so I won't be replying again.   Live with your lies and keep your bigotry, you probably don't have much else.

Tommy Monk wrote:If someone lives in a council place, What shortage is caused if they rent it or own it And are going to stay there for 30-40 years?
Plus the councils could build more after they paid their debts, that didn't take long.
And immigration was minimal in 80's and 90's compared to under labour when the opened the flood gates, and there wasn't a housing shortage until then.
What bit of that do you not understand?
And Sassy, all you have just posted is waffle.
You can't argue the points so just go into another personal attack.

The shortage in social housing is caused because the population rises naturally as the the years go on and not just because of immigration. You obviously do not understand that.

The flood gates were opened when Thatcher and John Major signed us up to the EU meaning any European citizen could come here any time they liked and they did ever since the mid 90s when it came into effect. Real open door immigration started in the 60s when the Tories decided that immigration controls were not necessary. What is about that that you do not understand.

Just keep making it up as you go along though.

Wrong, back then it was a small number of countries and there was no real significant movement of people to here.

Councils were free to build after they paid debts which didn't take long, and labour had control over most of councils through 90's, so why didn't they build more?



The fact is, there was no shortage until labour got in govt and opened the taps on immigration, and I'm talking total immigration, not just EU, but then they opened the taps on EU too in 2004 which caused more shortage.


They did Fuck all building during their time in govt and that is what caused the shortage, the rise in costs of living and the driving down of wages with all the cheap labour just to compound problems further.


So stop talking shit and trying to blame thatcher in the 80's for labours complete fuck ups during their time in govt which have caused the problems we have now.

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong, back then it was a small number of countries and there was no real significant movement of people to here.

Councils were free to build after they paid debts which didn't take long, and labour had control over most of councils through 90's, so why didn't they build more?



The fact is, there was no shortage until labour got in govt and opened the taps on immigration, and I'm talking total immigration, not just EU, but then they opened the taps on EU too in 2004 which caused more shortage.


They did Fuck all building during their time in govt and that is what caused the shortage, the rise in costs of living and the driving down of wages with all the cheap labour just to compound problems further.


So stop talking shit and trying to blame thatcher in the 80's for labours complete fuck ups during their time in govt which have caused the problems we have now.

You're talking rubbish because the councils had no funds to replace the housing stock due to the money being denied to them from the sales as well as cuts in funding from central government so clearing any debts was just a red-herring invented by the Tories to stop councils building social housing by starving of the means to do so.

If you think there was no shortage of social housing before 1997 then you are tuppence short of a shilling because there certainly was. Labour removed the block on the proceeds from sales going back to the councils and their building programme had already kicked in but stalled on the back of the collapse of the global banking system caused by the bankers.

And you're right, the rise in costs of living and the driving down of wages with cheap labour just tompounded problems further - it's called the cost of living crisis - another Tory failure. I'm sure you heard that on the news.

Thatcher/ Major = EU. EU = open borders.

And an extra for you. From the National Archives....

Before 1962 there was an 'open door' tradition for Commonwealth Immigrants. In fact the British Nationality Act of 1948 uses the terms 'Commonwealth citizen' and 'British subject' as one and the same thing. British passports designated their bearers as citizens of 'the United Kingdom and Colonies', with the implication that every Commonwealth citizen was also a British subject, and, therefore, guaranteed the right of entry to the United Kingdom. The pro-Commonwealth Conservative Government, in power between 1954 and 1961, took the view that immigration controls were unnecessary and divisive.

Now you're moving the goal posts to when immigration first really started.



FAct remains, labour opened the taps and didn't build enough, while giving available social housing to immigrants.

Tommy Monk wrote:Now you're moving the goal posts to when immigration first really started.



FAct remains, labour opened the taps and didn't build enough, while giving available social housing to immigrants.

No Tommy. That was just an added extra for your benefit. I told you that. And remember the sun never set on the British Empire back then so you can imagine how many countries that covered. It's a lot isn't it.

Right to buy sold off over 2 million homes so explain how 2 million homes could be replaced as well as hospitals and schools that were left to rot with no investment in the infrastructure and much of the money in revenue blown on welfare benefits to prop up over 3 million unemployed - a price worth paying according to the Tories.

You asked for evidence that the number of housing benefit claimants didn't go up under Labour and I gave you that and now you're running around all over the place trying to get out of the mess you have created for yourself.

Rock on Tommy.

No, you only showed it stayed roughly the same for 3-4 years.


What about the other 10?



Council housing was sold to The people who lived there, so still occupied by them.


Still haven't answered the point that labour opened the taps to mass immigration but built Fuck all housing.

Tommy Monk wrote:No, you only showed it stayed roughly the same for 3-4 years.


What about the other 10?



Council housing was sold to The people who lived there, so still occupied by them.


Still haven't answered the point that labour opened the taps to mass immigration but built Fuck all housing.

The number remained stable over the entire period. Here's the data straight from the government web site broken down by exact numbers...

There were 4,777,430 recipients of Housing Benefit in Great Britain in July 2010, receiving on average £84.28 per week.
69% of Housing Benefit recipients are tenants in the social rented sector, while 31% live in private rented accommodation. Over the last decade there has been a marked decline in the proportion of Housing Benefit recipients who live in local authority accommodation, while the proportion living in registered social accommodation and the private deregulated sector have both risen:

From the Government - choke on it.

And yes, sold to the people that still lived there or who have sold it off and it's now being used as rental accomodation by private landlords. And still not enough social housing built to replace 2 million homes which is impossible.

You really don't know what you are talking about or you are just in complete denial about why we have a shortage of social housing due to the policies of restricting social house building under the Tories for well on most of their time in power. Add to that the deregulation of the rental market in 1988 and the picture should become clear even to you.

You asked for evidence that the number of claimants didn't go up and now you have it. It's gone up since the Tories got in though hasn't it?

That only says the figure in 2010.


And says some variations in different types of accommodation.


It does not show total claimants from 1997 to 2010 remained the same.

Tommy Monk wrote:That only says the figure in 2010.

All the figures from 1997 - 2010 are there.

Tommy Monk wrote:And says some variations in different types of accommodation.

So what? The totals for both are there and both relate to housing benefit.

Tommy Monk wrote:It does not show total claimants from 1997 to 2010 remained the same.

Yes it does.

You either didn't read it or you didn't understand the figures or you are just plain lying. So which is it?

In fact the only thing you have got right in this discussion is that the cost of living crisis under this government has really pushed the numbers up to record levels.

Can you please highlight the bit where it shows the figures from 1997-2010 because I can't see them there.


All it says is a total amount for 2010.


And that .....



"Over the last decade there has been a marked decline in the proportion of Housing Benefit recipients who live in local authority accommodation, while the proportion living in registered social accommodation and the private deregulated sector have both risen:"

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:...........................

UKIP do not care about people...they use fear mongering tactics and manipulate the base hatred that exists in people's hearts

The trouble is that a "proper LW party" will still only care about some people and not others. It's the same with most parties. UKIP cares about British people - or claims to anyway.

  

"UKIP cares about British people..."

 ://?roflmao?/:

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The trouble is that a "proper LW party" will still only care about some people and not others. It's the same with most parties. UKIP cares about British people - or claims to anyway.

  

"UKIP cares about British people..."



 ://?roflmao?/: 

  

I thought that was a belter too Bee!  

Lone Wolf wrote:
  

MAYBE it's because of that 'quantum leap' that an otherwise reasonable person would have to make, so as to lower themselves to vote for their Tory, fascist or corporatist candidates ???

THEY might vote for the Righteous Whingers collectives as a once off, so as to "punish" a former regime that's let them down badly..

HOWEVER, to repeatedly keep on inflicting a conservative government on any country means that a significant proportion of its citizenry has lost all sense of decency, humanity, equality, fairness, charity, and respect and caring for their neighbours and community, the environment and their country as a whole.   

Well, I think in the US the people now get it...and they have elected a president who likewise gets it.  Unfortunately, conservatives can be like an infection in that, if you toss democracy to the winds, you can play endless games with the mechanics of politics.  Conservatives do not care about rule of the people, and opt instead to gerrymander and manipulate the political system to get their way.  What do we think voter suppression is all about?  Or, stalling on an immigration law, because if passed it would make the majority of the American voters Latino.  Better to throw out the baby with the bath.

So the people haven't "lost all sense of decency, humanity, equality, fairness, charity, and respect and caring for their neighbours and community, the environment and their country as a whole."  But, rather, conservative manipulation of the mechanics of politics means that the will of the people cannot come through.  The House is controlled by conservative Republicans who say, we will ruin the country before we will let the people govern it.  Consequently, we have seen a parade of inactivity, where nothing can get done and no legislation is forthcoming--except a slush of nonsense that is meant to advertise ideological, not practical goals.  No debt ceiling is raised.  No budget is passed.  Nothing happens.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Bee, except your conclusion.  When the people finally get their country back, I believe it will be the finish of the Republican Party.  The people have seen what traitors they are.  But equally ugly--and perhaps what is equally consistent--the people have seen how the conservative Republicans don't care the slightest about everyday people.

Tommy Monk wrote:Can you please highlight the bit where it shows the figures from 1997-2010 because I can't see them there.
All it says is a total amount for 2010.
And that .....
"Over the last decade there has been a marked decline in the proportion of Housing Benefit recipients who live in local authority accommodation, while the proportion living in registered social accommodation and the private deregulated sector have both risen:"

Still waiting......

So am I for your evidence on the other thread.

However, I have to finish packing for Spain tomorrow, so lucky old you has two weeks to find the evidence lol

Have a nice time Sassy!


Don't sit in the sun too long!


You don't want any more wrinkles!!!!

Sassy wrote:So am I for your evidence on the other thread.

However, I have to finish packing for Spain tomorrow, so lucky old you has two weeks to find the evidence lol

Oh,you're going on holiday,on the other thread I'm talking to myself   

Have a lovely time Sassy and enjoy yourself   

Hi didge.

As the only Conservative i know on here, i find it strange how you haven't commented at all on this topic.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Can you please highlight the bit where it shows the figures from 1997-2010 because I can't see them there.
All it says is a total amount for 2010.
And that .....
"Over the last decade there has been a marked decline in the proportion of Housing Benefit recipients who live in local authority accommodation, while the proportion living in registered social accommodation and the private deregulated sector have both risen:"

Still waiting......

What are you waiting on? I gave you the figures

Number of claimants May 1997 - 4640

Number of claimants May 2009 when the financial collapse kicked in - 4413

I just knew you hadn't read the link I gave you.

  "Tommy Monk" keeps on digging himself into deeper and deeper holes on each thread that he wanders into...

He seems intent on proving himself to be the stupidest and thickest member on this forum...

EVEN below those erstwhile competitors victor', heavenly, Raggs and smelly'..    

IRon, what link?

You just posted up some information that only showed figure for 2010.


Being at around 4 million.


Now you are saying the claimant number is about 4 thousand.


Why can't you just post up the proper data and a link?


You made the claim, I didn't say it was wrong, just asked you to clarify it with some evidence.

BigAndy9 wrote:Hi didge.

As the only Conservative i know on here, i find it strange how you haven't commented at all on this topic.

Well andy, I agree to the extent that didge is the most intelligent conservative on this forum.  Wise enough, that is, to know you've got to pick your debates carefully.

All I'm asking for is some practical accounting for why conservatives dislike people.  I am not wrong in the premise: I have shown more than enough to establish that this is so--Conservatives and Republicans don't want people to be fed, they don't want people to be healthy, they don't want people to be educated, they don't want people to be secure in their own homes and they don't want people to be free from war.  I cannot leave without pointing out that Conservatives and Republicans want to stockpile people to be available to give their lives in time of war--kinda like keeping a stable full of young women to satisfy their lust for, well...you get the point.

Nor am I wrong in the conclusion.  In this country conservative Republicans want to keep African Americans from participating in democratic processes.  They want to keep Hispanics from voting or even legitimizing their status as citizens.  Conservative Republicans want to dictate to women how to treat their own bodies--particularly reproduction--but they decidedly don't want to put forth the money to raise the children the "sluts" produce as a result of these disastrous liaisons.  (They told us so in an interview from the bed of their own secretary...or was it an aide?  Anyway, they asked us not to tell their wives.)

Conservative Republicans don't want children to receive nurture or adequate food; they want to stop the school lunch programs and disable the food stamps program (but not the subsidies to Agribusiness in the same Farm Bill).  They don't want to see the families of those children with adequate shelter over their heads, either; god forbid that we should support Section 8 housing or give any aid to the homeless.  And of course, we've all heard the crowing that conservative Republicans are making about the Affordable Care Act...they have no alternative, so apparently they simply don't want the common man to be healthy in any way.

In fact, the only thing the conservative Republican wants for the common person is that s/he be available to be massacred in the next fun war...perhaps help out with the torture or rape, or sundry kidnapping that must be done.  Perhaps the common man might make himself useful as a drone pilot, available to kill in the next mission.  Otherwise, fook 'em...they're useless.

Why do you look for didge to cop your plea for you, andy?  You're a clever one yourself.  Can you give any answer?  Put aside your tone, and I'll put aside my tone, and let us have a simple discussion.  Give me one distinct point on which I am wrong.  Or for god's sake, give me even a single point where the parallel liberal is the same.  S/he isn't the same, is s/he?  The liberal wants only what's best for humanity.

The Tory or Republican wants most of all--after, of course, his money--to screw the common man.  Refute that, my vociferous young man.

That is rubbish quill, of course conservatives want people fed, healthy and secure in own homes.


It is labour who have been dumbing down the education system, against grammar schools and private education, while of course sending their own children to top private schools like the true hypocrites they are.

They have consistently undermined their core working class support they purport to represent through mass immigration and open door to EU bringing in cheap labour which has driven down wages while increasing cost of living.


The NHS is facing cash shortages now because of the hugely over expensive PFI deals they made on new hospitals, with services closing at others now to pay for it.

Tommy Monk wrote:IRon, what link?

You just posted up some information that only showed figure for 2010.


Being at around 4 million.


Now you are saying the claimant number is about 4 thousand.


Why can't you just post up the proper data and a link?


You made the claim, I didn't say it was wrong, just asked you to clarify it with some evidence.

For gawds sake I gave you the link ages ago but here it is again

From the Government - choke on it.

And the figures are from that file which is of course millions and if you had read it you would have known that.

This is getting really boring now in practically having to lead you by the hand in this discussion. Now shape up or ship out.

Tommy Monk wrote:That is rubbish quill, of course conservatives want people fed, healthy and secure in own homes.


It is labour who have been dumbing down the education system, against grammar schools and private education, while of course sending their own children to top private schools like the true hypocrites they are.

They have consistently undermined their core working class support they purport to represent through mass immigration and open door to EU bringing in cheap labour which has driven down wages while increasing cost of living.


The NHS is facing cash shortages now because of the hugely over expensive PFI deals they made on new hospitals, with services closing at others now to pay for it.

Open door immigration from the EU happened because Thatcher and Major took us there.

PFI was the brainchild of John Major and now we have Osborne signing off more PFI contract in terms of value than even Brown did as prime minister.

Quill is correct in that Tories hate people who they see as a cost and I can see that you would rather there were no hospitals built to replace the decaying infrastructure that the Tories left because they had blown all the money leaving Labour to try and mop up the mess.

Firstly how was I supposed to know that was a link?
Hardly looked like one did it?
Plus it shows housing benefit claimants was on The decrease when labour took over then after a while started rising again to finish higher than when they took office with payments going from 11billion to just under 20 billion.
Hardly a record of success!
And the shortage of housing is a shortage of all housing, not just social housing.
But thanks for that anyway.

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly how was I supposed to know that was a link?
Hardly looked like one did it?
Plus it shows housing benefit claimants was on The decrease when labour took over then after a while started rising again to finish higher than when they took office with payments going from 11billion to just under 20 billion.
Hardly a record of success!
And the shortage of housing is a shortage of all housing, not just social housing.
But thanks for that anyway.

It's a link to a file not a website and I thought that even you would at least hover over it and click it.

Housing benefit claimants started to decrease when Labour came to power as they put people into work instead of paying the Tory price that unemployment was a price worth paying.

You asked for evidence that the NUMBER of housing benefit remained stable over the period and now you have it Only the collapse of the global banking system put it marginally over the 1997 figures and of course it has now rocketed up to record levels under the Tories.

The costs of Housing benefit rose for the reasons I gave you already - the Tory policy of selling off over 2 million council homes but refusing to let councils use the money to replace them and the deregulation of the rental sector. The figures show that.

The claimants were on The decline when labour got in, they would have been following Tory spending plans for a while.


But the cost doubled under labour. Tory were not in then so can't be responsible for it.

Tommy Monk wrote:The claimants were on The decline when labour got in, they would have been following Tory spending plans for a while.


But the cost doubled under labour. Tory were not in then so can't be responsible for it.

You mean the they were on the decline from having been on housing benefit from the record number of unemployed that the Tories racked up during their time in office - over 3 million wasn't it?

Labour put people to work and that's where the decline started because people found work and had jobs that they didn't draw much on HB. Look at the figures and you will see that the numbers in both the social and private rental sectors only started to rise when the global banking crisis kicked in in 2007/8 meaning that the population fell into the private rental sector because councils lost the right to use the proceeds from RTB sales to rebuild the stock that was lost to them.

You asked for evidence that the numbers on HB remained stable and you have been given that so how can you possibly complain that the costs went up because of Labour when it was the Tories that deregulated the rental sector. It really is quite simple for you to understand that but you appear to be having great difficulty doing so.

An added extra for you Tommy. It's from the Institute for Fiscal Studies...

Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red.
 By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006–07.

And of course Osborne and Cameron pledged to match and exceed Labour's spending plans.

Oh deary me.

And.....?

Irn Bru wrote:An added extra for you Tommy. It's from the Institute for Fiscal Studies...

Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red.
 By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006–07.

And of course Osborne and Cameron pledged to match and exceed Labour's spending plans.

Oh deary me.

Borrowing under Labour was less than the Tories...and without OTT austerity measures , or picking on the poor...

No bloody wonder we need another Labour government...perhaps if they get back in we shall see the reinstatement of the CTF and maternity grants , as well as the reinstatement/re- raising of the disregarded income when councils decide how much HB a person on benefits gets.


So many good reasons to bring back Labour