Current Affairs The Labour Party

[zzr45]

That data is for 15-17 years of age. The data from mine is for under 20. The full teenage data, not a snap shot.

You said teenage pregnancy was at its highest when Labour was in power, the data proves this was not the case and they tackled the problem with a long term strategy.

You mention it was an issue in your area, what area would that be? Also, may i ask your age?

Let's stop putting words in my mouth shall we? I never said anywhere it was at it's highest under Labour, but as you already stated its dropped 55% since 1998. So drawing inference from that then it must have been higher at that point, right?

Even we we look at the under 20's as a group the ONS shows there wasn't any big drops between '98 (start of the project) and 2008 - it'd dropped 9% in relative terms for under 20's and 21% for under 18's. It could be argued that those figures are slightly skewed by the migration boom from 2003 onwards as the number of young migrants came in most likely skewed it. So they took steps to reducing it, but it wasn't quite the 10 year strategy they'd hoped for.

The big drops came in around in the 2010's. Again, given the comparatively low drops until then I'd start to look at the wider context.

And near the wonderful town of Crewe, and lates 20's.

 

[zzr45]

Just to confirm I'm reading this right...

If you are unable to contribute towards tax/NI/social care etc but are looked after by the state then this is a bit crap because those who can, contribute instead?

So your against the benefits system?

Also, those of us who feel strongly that the less fortunate should receive support from the state, should instead be going out and taking care of people that the government have abandoned? Rather than trying to hold the government accountable over the systematic erosion in social care and benefits?

Staggered by this to be honest.

No, what I'm saying that abuse of the system is a bit crap. Benefits are there as a safety net, not as a means of living (aside from the disabled, genuinely unable to work.) What isn't right is people being paid benefits far and above over what the average joe would earn working 40 hours a week. That's what the manifesto proposes to bring back in. That isn't right. (Again, I'd caveat that by saying those that actually need benefits to pay for care due to long term illness etc. should get.) Neither is it right that small businesses would be getting squeezed again.

And yes, go and take care of them all. That's exactly what I'm saying. They are all poor little flowers and this country has been so mean to them.

 

[Number_25]

No, what I'm saying that abuse of the system is a bit crap. Benefits are there as a safety net, not as a means of living (aside from the disabled, genuinely unable to work.) What isn't right is people being paid benefits far and above over what the average joe would earn working 40 hours a week. That's what the manifesto proposes to bring back in. That isn't right. (Again, I'd caveat that by saying those that actually need benefits to pay for care due to long term illness etc. should get.) Neither is it right that small businesses would be getting squeezed again.

And yes, go and take care of them all. That's exactly what I'm saying. They are all poor little flowers and this country has been so mean to them.

I think the problem here is that work doesn't pay then.

That's why having a £10 minimum wage would be a fantastic incentive for the illusive "can work, won't work" like that the right always seem to bang on about.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I think the problem here is that work doesn't pay then.

That's why having a £10 minimum wage would be a fantastic incentive for the illusive "can work, won't work" like that the right always seem to bang on about.

Do you genuinely, hand on heart, believe the entire manifesto can be funded (without printing money and bankruptcy that is)?

Personally feel one of the best ways or redistributing wealth is lowering tax on low earners, therefore not actually taking the money off poorer workers in the first place. I'm confused why Corbyn hasn't included that.

 

[Moomin]

No, what I'm saying that abuse of the system is a bit crap. Benefits are there as a safety net, not as a means of living (aside from the disabled, genuinely unable to work.) What isn't right is people being paid benefits far and above over what the average joe would earn working 40 hours a week. That's what the manifesto proposes to bring back in. That isn't right. (Again, I'd caveat that by saying those that actually need benefits to pay for care due to long term illness etc. should get.) Neither is it right that small businesses would be getting squeezed again.

And yes, go and take care of them all. That's exactly what I'm saying. They are all poor little flowers and this country has been so mean to them.

Wow, you are a credit to the country and human kind.

Take a bow.

 

[zzr45]

Wow, you are a credit to the country and human kind.

Take a bow.

So you're saying that people should get more on benefits than people in work?

Truly, the Rubicon has been crossed.

 

[Moomin]

So you're saying that people should get more on benefits than people in work?

Truly, the Rubicon has been crossed.

I never said that, stop putting words into my mouth.

It's your lack of empathy and comments such as " And yes, go and take care of them all. That's exactly what I'm saying. They are all poor little flowers and this country has been so mean to them "

You have seemed to pigeon hole everyone in with the small few who abuse the benefit system.

 

[zzr45]

I never said that, stop putting words into my mouth.

It's your lack of empathy and comments such as " And yes, go and take care of them all. That's exactly what I'm saying. They are all poor little flowers and this country has been so mean to them "

You have seemed to pigeon hole everyone in with the small few who abuse the benefit system.

So you don't get sarcasm then?

 

[tsubaki]

So you're saying that people should get more on benefits than people in work?

Truly, the Rubicon has been crossed.

That isn't what the manifesto draft said. What they said they would do is:

Labour will repeal the following cuts in social security support to disabled people through a new Social Security Bill published in our first year of office to:

• Increase ESA by £30 per week for those in the work-related activity group and repeal cuts in UC LCW
• Uprate carer’s allowance by £11 to the level of Job seekers Allowance
• Implement the court decision on PIP so that there is real parity of esteem between those with physical and mental health conditions.
• Scrap the Work Capability and Personal Independence Payment assessments and replace them with a personalised, holistic assessment process which provides each individual with a tailored plan, building on their strengths and addressing barriers.
• End the pointless stress of reassessments for people with severe long-term conditions
• Commission a report into expanding the Access to Work programme

 

[zzr45]

That isn't what the manifesto draft said. What they said they would do is:

Welfare

• Scrap bedroom tax and reinstate housing benefit for under-21s.
• Review cuts to Universal Credit and limits on payments to first two children of families.

 

[Moomin]

So you don't get sarcasm then?

You also said to someone else " If you feel so strongly that we as a society should look after people maybe you could take some of these people in yourself? "

So this is sarcasm and not you sneering at the less well off.

 

[tsubaki]

Welfare

• Scrap bedroom tax and reinstate housing benefit for under-21s.
• Review cuts to Universal Credit and limits on payments to first two children of families.

People in work can get housing benefit, and they can get universal credit, and they can get child benefit. Indeed just over half of the people defined as "in poverty" are working.

 

[zzr45]

You also said to someone else " If you feel so strongly that we as a society should look after people maybe you could take some of these people in yourself? "

So this is sarcasm and not you sneering at the less well off.

Because I am REALLY struggling with the concept that people in here seem to have that it is perfectly reasonable for people to work 40-50 hour weeks, and for small businesses to be stymied to pay towards a benefit system that could actually see claimants better off than the poor buggers actually contributing.

There's no sneering at all, there is a complete and utter befuddlement that people think that is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs.

 

[Moomin]

This manifesto is a draft, i bet next week it has changed.

 

[tsubaki]

This manifesto is a draft, i bet next week it has changed.

I wouldn't worry Moomin, I doubt most of its critics here have actually read it.