Jeremy Corbyn

[SocketRocket]

It is a report on the guidelines to DWP Decision Managers when considering applying sanctions. It tells them that it is a fact that sanctions have an adverse affect on the health of those sanctioned, and that they should consider whether sanctions on more vulnerable claimants could be even more harmful. You really do refuse to accept that some of this governments policies are actually harming individuals and families. The government seems to find this acceptable - as it seems you do as you are happy for that harm to be brought about if it gets the swindlers and work-shy, and punishes those who stray. That is not the action of a compassionate government.

You just don't seem to see the other side to this. I have made it clear that we need to help the genuine to get back into employment but for some reason you keep ignoring that comment, why? Regarding sanctions, as I said previously, these are applied where people don't turn up for interviews at job centres or for jobs and where they don't make a suitable effort to find employment. Again: would you agree with this comment?

Please explain what you mean by "When people stray" Does this mean 'when they don't try hard enough'?

Try to actually read and digest what is being said to you.

 

[Hobbit]

It is a report on the guidelines to DWP Decision Managers when considering applying sanctions. It tells them that it is a fact that sanctions have an adverse affect on the health of those sanctioned, and that they should consider whether sanctions on more vulnerable claimants could be even more harmful. You really do refuse to accept that some of this governments policies are actually harming individuals and families. The government seems to find this acceptable - as it seems you do as you are happy for that harm to be brought about if it gets the swindlers and work-shy, and punishes those who stray. That is not the action of a compassionate government.

As you say, "its a report on the guidelines," and although I do agree with some of the report I would contend that some of the language is biased to put a slant to the report.

But a direct question; do you agree that those on benefits should be able to afford Sky TV and an iphone? There's people who are working that can't afford Sky.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

As you say, "its a report on the guidelines," and although I do agree with some of the report I would contend that some of the language is biased to put a slant to the report.

But a direct question; do you agree that those on benefits should be able to afford Sky TV and an iphone? There's people who are working that can't afford Sky.

all of which is the usual diversionary stuff to divert us away from my point that government policy that is actually and knowingly harmful to the health of individuals is wrong. But since you asked a closed question on iPhones and Sky I'll answer in a closed way. If they can afford it then yes.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

As you say, "its a report on the guidelines," and although I do agree with some of the report I would contend that some of the language is biased to put a slant to the report.

But a direct question; do you agree that those on benefits should be able to afford Sky TV and an iphone? There's people who are working that can't afford Sky.

Sometimes life is just not that simple.........to help out, Dad may be paying for Sky and Grannie might be paying for the iphone.

 

[Ethan]

Something that seems lost in the "Corbyn can't win the general election" line is that neither can any of the others, frankly.

Can't say I'm a great fan of George Monbiot but I think he makes a lot of decent points in this....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream

I am not a fan of Monbiot either but he is exactly right. All those arguing that Corbyn can't be PM are missing the point.

 

[SocketRocket]

Sometimes life is just not that simple.........to help out, Dad may be paying for Sky and Grannie might be paying for the iphone.

And some people are incredibly naive if they believe that.

 

[SocketRocket]

all of which is the usual diversionary stuff to divert us away from my point that government policy that is actually and knowingly harmful to the health of individuals is wrong. But since you asked a closed question on iPhones and Sky I'll answer in a closed way. If they can afford it then yes.

So sanctioning peoples benefits can harm their health. If thats the case then someone not attending interviews etc can be deliberately harming their own health, using your logic.

Do you honestly believe that the last Labour Government didn't punish people for these misdemeanours?

 

[SocketRocket]

I think Labour really does need to rediscover it's self. If it's members want it to be further to the left and have policies similar to those Corbyn stands for then they need to vote for him and support him to redefine Labours routemap for the Nations future.

The Nation can and will decide if these policies are attractive to them at the next election.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

And some people are incredibly naive if they believe that.

Not really, I follow the philosophy of 99% of the people living in the UK are great and I just ignore the 1%.
That is the 1% that always seem to rattle your cage.

 

[Hobbit]

all of which is the usual diversionary stuff to divert us away from my point that government policy that is actually and knowingly harmful to the health of individuals is wrong. But since you asked a closed question on iPhones and Sky I'll answer in a closed way. If they can afford it then yes.

But its the article you posted up that you said was a (newspaper) report on the guidelines. How is it the "usual diversionary stuff" when you were using it to reinforce your argument? But you've not decided... what?

So are you now saying that Govt policy is knowingly harmful, via the finger in the wind method, or are you quoting the article which is the "usual diversionary stuff" to reinforce your argument?

Alternatively, if people followed the rules they wouldn't get sanctioned... well that's just too complicated eh?

 

[SocketRocket]

Not really, I follow the philosophy of 99% of the people living in the UK are great and I just ignore the 1%.
That is the 1% that always seem to rattle your cage.

Maybe you would like to re-read what you just posted!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/

Interesting summary by Wings...........3rd placed candidate may win.
What would happen next?

 

[Hobbit]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/

Interesting summary by Wings...........3rd placed candidate may win.
What would happen next?

Quite an interesting read Doon. Not the usual frothing rant from WOS. However, and again well qualified by WOS, they do admit "We’ve deliberately made the example extreme."

In some ways, not dissimilar to the first past the post voting system we currently have in so much as the SNP can garner a way smaller % of the UK vote than the LibDems but end up with way more seats. And no, it's not a skit at the SNP, just using it as an example of the now flawed FPP system we have when there's more than 2 decent choices at the polls.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Quite an interesting read Doon. Not the usual frothing rant from WOS. However, and again well qualified by WOS, they do admit "We’ve deliberately made the example extreme."

In some ways, not dissimilar to the first past the post voting system we currently have in so much as the SNP can garner a way smaller % of the UK vote than the LibDems but end up with way more seats. And no, it's not a skit at the SNP, just using it as an example of the now flawed FPP system we have when there's more than 2 decent choices at the polls.

On reflection it's a bit of a red herring to cite the number of SNP MPs as a failing if FPTP. They have a small %age of the uk vote because they only stood in a small %age of constituencies but they garnered a high %age of the vote in those constituencies.

 

[Hobbit]

On reflection it's a bit of a red herring to cite the number of SNP MPs as a failing if FPTP. They have a small %age of the uk vote because they only stood in a small %age of constituencies but they garnered a high %age of the vote in those constituencies.

But a greater say in parliament than a party that garnered way more votes... you're not wrong FD, I just think its unfair on a large % of the population that voted LD but have virtually no representation.

 

[FairwayDodger]

But a greater say in parliament than a party that garnered way more votes... you're not wrong FD, I just think its unfair on a large % of the population that voted LD but have virtually no representation.

I agree and don't like FPTP either just think a bit more nuance is required when looking at SNP results.

 

[ger147]

I agree and don't like FPTP either just think a bit more nuance is required when looking at SNP results.

It's a similar situation when you look at the other obvious extreme example i.e. a single issue independent candidate standing in their own constituency. They may get 16,000 or so votes if the seat is a 3 way fight and just pinch the win. Nationwide, their share of the vote would be less than the Monster Raving Looney party yet they have a seat and the Monster Raving Loonies don't.

At the risk of getting shot for mentioning Scotland, I believe the system up here is quite a good one i.e. a mix of constituency and other MSP's, so each area still has their own representative but the list allows parliament to be balanced out to a certain extent to ensure parties with a decent share of the vote but very few MSP's in the constituencies to also have MSP's in parliament to represent the large numbers of people who voted for them.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

It amuses me when commentators compare SNP seats in Westminster to the UK based Lib/Dem and UKIP parties.
The SNP have a base of approx 4 million voters whereas the other two parties have a base of approx 40 million voters.

 

[Ethan]

FPTP is an issue which has caused grief for different parts of the political spectrum at different times, so isn't a left-right issue. Right now UKIP has the greatest grounds for complaint but Labour have some issues too and they will get worse after planned gerrymandering, sorry boundary changes.

In terms of the rights and wrongs, it all depends what you think the intent of an election should be. If it is to select a parliament which accurately reflects the will of the people, then the general election failed. If it is to select a single representative that best reflects the choice of a defined group, it works. people understand FPTP better than STV, AV or other PR systems. A second related issue is safe seats. Many, possibly most, people on the UK are on seats where the result is more or less a foregone conclusion. Their vote counts less than in seats where there is a more balanced vote. The politicians love this. I would like to see boundary changes which make every seat a real contest.

 

[Ethan]

But a greater say in parliament than a party that garnered way more votes... you're not wrong FD, I just think its unfair on a large % of the population that voted LD but have virtually no representation.

You can't blame the SNP for an electoral quirk which had given them a significant degree of power. But you could say the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories are doing exactly the same. They are really a party within a party.