Priti Patel!!

I t hi ink it’s really easy to criticise policy and the gvt, a lot of people on here do it as a matter of course without thinking for themselves. What cannot go on is that people see benefits as a lifestyle/career choice, the gvt should be commended for having aspirations to get these people intowork.
 
FatCat said:
I t hi ink it’s really easy to criticise policy and the gvt, a lot of people on here do it as a matter of course without thinking for themselves. What cannot go on is that people see benefits as a lifestyle/career choice, the gvt should be commended for having aspirations to get these people intowork.
Click to expand...

No, I’ve really thought about it and it’s really easy to criticise because it’s an abhorrent policy.

And these people that you keep talking about that see benefits as a lifestyle or career choice? They don’t really exist in any material number. It’s a nonsense. The economy and its assets are being stripped, wealth is being transferred upwards and you’re falling for the age old trick whereby the people taking the wealth and the assets are pointing at immigrants and benefits claimants.
 
I would argue she is wrong basic laws of supply and demand in economics would tell her that, quoting a few outlier cases hardly makes hat she is saying as fact.
 
Adi how it fits with the plans is not the point here.

It is quite clear that Cooper has a good knowledge of the workings of DWP but you, as always, insist that you know better.

Not only do you dismiss what he says but you try to have a go at him with smart **** comments like "As I said it’s worthless. Not worth the paper it’s not written on".

Perhaps next time you will do a little research first instead of believing that as "it’s not included in any publicly available information I’ve seen then it’s simply worthless"
 
Adi_Dem said:
No, I’ve really thought about it and it’s really easy to criticise because it’s an abhorrent policy.

And these people that you keep talking about that see benefits as a lifestyle or career choice? They don’t really exist in any material number. It’s a nonsense. The economy and its assets are being stripped, wealth is being transferred upwards and you’re falling for the age old trick whereby the people taking the wealth and the assets are pointing at immigrants and benefits claimants.
Click to expand...

im not falling for any trick - I accept we need
Immigrant workers but I would prefer we get the unemployed into work before using the alternative of immigrant workers.
 
BoroBosco said:
Adi how it fits with the plans is not the point here.

It is quite clear that Cooper has a good knowledge of the workings of DWP but you, as always, insist that you know better.

Not only do you dismiss what he says but you try to have a go at him with smart **** comments like "As I said it’s worthless. Not worth the paper it’s not written on".

Perhaps next time you will do a little research first instead of believing that as "it’s not included in any publicly available information I’ve seen then it’s simply worthless"
Click to expand...

If that’s the way you have chosen to interpret and characterise the exchange that’s up to you. I’ve read it again and all I do and intended to do was ask for information that I couldn’t find anywhere. Cooper couldn’t either. I researched, asked questions on here and eventually got to the answer. No smart **** comments and no insistence that I know better. Just the opposite in fact: asking to be pointed to the right information.

I’d wind your neck in if I were you. Absolutely nothing to see here.
 
FatCat said:
im not falling for any trick - I accept we need
Immigrant workers but I would prefer we get the unemployed into work before using the alternative of immigrant workers.
Click to expand...

Your posts confirm the opposite. You’re falling for the false narrative that there is a material number of people choosing benefits as a career. There is no evidence of that. You’re also persuaded that immigrants are taking jobs away from people. Again there is no evidence of that either. Finally, you believe that this policy will provide employment opportunities. It won’t.
 
I’m surprised they don’t have him working in government , never has a person been more cocksure that he is right about everything and any detractors are wrong.
 
FatCat said:
I’m surprised they don’t have him working in government , never has a person been more cocksure that he is right about everything and any detractors are wrong.
Click to expand...

Yet this thread demonstrates the exact opposite of that!
 
All I said was that she seemed a bit dim!! My word I got a ton with my first post. I didn't manage over 50 on the old board so thank you Cooper for, well ya know, erm your contrary and frankly weird viewpoint.
 
Nothing weird stating what actual government policy is as opposed to you wetting yourself over something is not even a reality (y)
 
Cooper I have met so many with similar views to yours and across a wide spectrum of subjects, none of them can see the speciousness of their arguments. Even when they are proven to be demonstrably wrong, they either move the goal posts (Brexit) or employ vast amounts of whataboutary. Occasionally it does our souls good to admit, once shown beyond any doubt, that we are wrong. Losing an argument and learning from that is not a weakness, it's a stregnth.
 
Really struggling to see your bizarre logic. You made a post flapping about people being moved around the country to do work or they would lose their benefits. That had no substance to it and I have stated and provided evidence to show what government policy is.

When you can provide facts or actually take note of them instead of flapping about and trying to scaremonger give me a shout. Good lad (y)
 
Nobody was flapping son ;- ) I just wondered if a policy she had announced, which was clearly unworkable, meant she hadn't thought it through. I later wondered, if she was to implement the unthought through policy, what the issues with her term, 'economically inactive' might be. Clearly, if a policy needs enacting then the government will need to do some actions to make it work. Otherwise said policy is a load of unworkable bo**ocks

Just to add, I think we are about to get a lot more of these policies.
 
Cooper6711 said:
It does protect the most vulnerable. Anyone who makes a claim for PIP or ESA and their death is expected within 6 months is instantly awarded the benefit at the highest rate under special rules.

Your assertion is that the 17,000 people who died waiting for PIP decisions were on deaths door. Given the above guidance none of these people have been expected to pass away within 6 months of their initial claim. You can't state because someone dies that retrospectively they should have been awarded the benefit no question. Where does it end.... I have an illness that could potentially lead to my death one day so I should be awarded the benefit no questions asked just in case?
Click to expand...


PIP? Have you had any invovement in its workings? I suspect not...i have and its one of the most degrading things thats ever happened to me, its one from the pages of the SS...idiots like you must spend your time googling, pasting and copying and arguing about thing you know nothing about..your a first class idiot
 
Unfortunately you are way off the mark there. My statement is factual also
 
They're going to use the stick of reduced benefits rather than the carrot of increased wages to replace the economic migrants. I remember the YTS of thatcher's time....working my **** off for £30pw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top