The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Awol]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Andrea Jenkyns is the MP for Morley & Outwood (her most famous distinction is beating Ed Balls at the last election). A couple of days ago, she tweeted a picture. The picture, and her comment on it, are replicated below:

For those who can't be bothered, the text on the sign reads:

'DEAR LABOUR CANVASSERS,

A PROUD FORCES VETERAN LIVES HERE

YOUR LEADER SUPPORTS THE IRA.

 

KNOCK AT YOUR OWN RISK'

One of the neighbouring constituencies of Morley & Outwood is Batley & Spen. Jo Cox MP was murdered for her political beliefs approximately three miles from the edge of Jenkyns' constituency. 

You're not seriously suggesting a voter who strongly objects to Jezza's Provo fan boy status is a potential murderer, are you? 

I think you're a very good poster on this forum but that's bonkers.

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

You're not seriously suggesting a voter who strongly objects to Jezza's Provo fan boy status is a potential murderer, are you? 

I think you're a very good poster on this forum but that's bonkers.

Agreed. If someone was as much of a fanboy of the IRA as Corbyn and I was a vet of that conflict I'd not want anyone from labour at my door until he stepped down either. 

[a m ole]

26 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Okay, so how many people does the UK have fit to work? If you come to throw down then at least do your research. 

Current estimated population: 65.4m

+65 years and over 17.1% - 11.6m

0-16 years 18.8% - 12.29m

There were 22.9 million people in work in 2016.

considering we have 6.28 million people unemployed, do you not consider it to be possible that 2.2 million of them could be in work if they tried a bit harder? That is 10% of the working populace. Again, facts are a lot harder to argue against than whatever personal/political/emotional response you have to work statistics.

PS: Thank you for trying to insult me again.

All of this is a long way away from scamming the system.

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, a m ole said:

All of this is a long way away from scamming the system.

Okay, sorry if my wording is wrong to you. It still remains that we have a much larger problem with unemployment than a lot of people think we do. Calling posters who are quoting factual figures ironic and stupid just proves why our whole political system is awash with people who really have no idea of what politics were to begin with. Instead it's a "he said, she said" kind of thing. Bring something to the table instead of just kneejerking on other people's posts.

[HanoiVillan]

26 minutes ago, Awol said:

You're not seriously suggesting a voter who strongly objects to Jezza's Provo fan boy status is a potential murderer, are you? 

I think you're a very good poster on this forum but that's bonkers.

Not a potential murderer, no. But I don't see how else to interpret 'knock at your own risk' except as a threat of violence of some kind. 

[a m ole]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Okay, sorry if my wording is wrong to you. It still remains that we have a much larger problem with unemployment than a lot of people think we do. Calling posters who are quoting factual figures ironic and stupid just proves why our whole political system is awash with people who really have no idea of what politics were to begin with. Instead it's a "he said, she said" kind of thing. Bring something to the table instead of just kneejerking on other people's posts.

they're not factual, UK unemployment rate is 4.8% at the last count.

I didn't once call you stupid. You keep complaining about being insulted instead of entering discourse, but all I've done is question your bold statements and you've failed to back them up.

There's no knee jerk reactions here. I'm responding to what I read and countering it. It's your job to provide substance to what you say, not mine mine to infer it. 

[mockingbird_franklin]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Not a potential murderer, no. But I don't see how else to interpret 'knock at your own risk' except as a threat of violence of some kind. 

Think you've got it all wrong, 'knock at your own risk' is just a signal of intent to strongly discuss the labour party manifesto

Edited April 29, 2017 by mockingbird_franklin

[magnkarl]

13 minutes ago, a m ole said:

they're not factual, UK unemployment rate is 4.8% at the last count.

I didn't once call you stupid. You keep complaining about being insulted instead of entering discourse, but all I've done is question your bold statements and you've failed to back them up.

There's no knee jerk reactions here. I'm responding to what I read and countering it. It's your job to provide substance to what you say, not mine mine to infer it. 

4.8% of what? You need to be a bit more critical to these figures, a bit like you are to me. My original post said work able population, not the population as a whole. You are arguing a point which is moot as you have misunderstood my original point. My statistics are taken from the exact same place you get the 4.8% from. Those 4.8% are a mix of wish wash categories to defend whichever government is in power and how they are dealing with unemployment.

[a m ole]

19 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

4.8% of what? You need to be a bit more critical to these figures, a bit like you are to me. My original post said work able population, not the population as a whole. You are arguing a point which is moot as you have misunderstood my original point. My statistics are taken from the exact same place you get the 4.8% from. Those 4.8% are a mix of wish wash categories to defend whichever government is in power and how they are dealing with unemployment.

In the UK the official unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of the labour force that is classed as unemployed.^[4]

The denominator here is also known as the "Labour Force" or the "Economically Active Population".

In the three months to February 2017 there were 33.4 million people in the UK labour force and 1.56 million people classed as unemployed. These figures gave an official UK unemployment rate of 4.7%

Edited April 29, 2017 by a m ole

[magnkarl]

38 minutes ago, a m ole said:

In the UK the official unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of the labour force that is classed as unemployed.^[4]

{\displaystyle {\mathrm {Official\ UK\ Unemployment\ Rate={\dfrac {All\ those\ aged\ 16\ and\ over\ classed\ as\ unemployed}{All\ those\ aged\ 16\ and\ over\ classed\ as\ employed\ or\ unemployed}}} }}

The denominator here is also known as the "Labour Force" or the "Economically Active Population".

In the three months to February 2017 there were 33.4 million people in the UK labour force and 1.56 million people classed as unemployed. These figures gave an official UK unemployment rate of 4.7%

Okay, what does the UK government classify as unemployed? There are a whole bunch of people who are considered employed when they are not. In fact a lot of the politics introduced since about 1985 have allowed governments to call people who are unemployed, employed. For example if you go on a job centre "work experience course", you are considered employed. The people who are on these courses see them for what they are, however the government gets to eliminate about 600k people from their unemployment figures. A lot of part time employed people fall into the same category. If you want full time work and you can only get part time work you are still considered 100% employed which is far from the truth.

And as a said earlier, there are a lot more groupings in society which would be considered unemployed by 1960 vocabulary, it is just much easier to see it like they are now. Countries like Germany and Norway are at the forefront of this thing, I read an article in Frankfurter Algemeine just last week saying that in truth the unemployment rates are much above 4% because the government has allowed private employment firms to consider people they have on "day to day" contracts as 100% employed. The same goes for Norway which is considered Mecca when it comes to employment and social democracy, a blinding amount of young people cannot get full time work because the government has supported private employment firms who skew the figures.

Edited April 29, 2017 by magnkarl

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The current UK population is estimated at 65.4 million. With the above figures 6.28million people are unemployed. 9.8% of Britain is unemployed. Are you going to insult me for possibly insinuating that people take advantage of our system?

I'd like not to insult you at all - but I'd suggest that the figures probably tell us more about the way the system takes advantage of people than the opposite.

 

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd like not to insult you at all - but I'd suggest that the figures probably tell us more about the way the system takes advantage of people than the opposite.

 

To an extent yes. It must suck to be part of the group "inactive" which is essentially pretty much the same as being unemployed just that you for one reason or the other don't elect to take hand outs.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Okay, what does the UK government classify as unemployed? There are a whole bunch of people who are considered employed when they are not. In fact a lot of the politics introduced since about 1985 have allowed governments to call people who are unemployed, employed. For example if you go on a job centre "work experience course", you are considered employed. The people who are on these courses see them for what they are, however the government gets to eliminate about 600k people from their unemployment figures. A lot of part time employed people fall into the same category. If you want full time work and you can only get part time work you are still considered 100% employed which is far from the truth.

And as a said earlier, there are a lot more groupings in society which would be considered unemployed by 1960 vocabulary, it is just much easier to see it like they are now. Countries like Germany and Norway are at the forefront of this thing, I read an article in Frankfurter Algemeine just last week saying that in truth the unemployment rates are much above 4% because the government has allowed private employment firms to consider people they have on "day to day" contracts as 100% employed. The same goes for Norway which is considered Mecca when it comes to employment and social democracy, a blinding amount of young people cannot get full time work because the government has supported private employment firms who skew the figures.

So, given how saddened you are about divisive rhetoric and how reactionary, inflammatory discourse is poisoning rational debate, do you want to bring us full circle and explain how those people are "scamming the system"?

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

Think you've got it all wrong, 'knock at your own risk' is just a signal of intent to strongly discuss the labour party manifesto

I think I'd rather take the violence

 

[Awol]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Not a potential murderer, no. But I don't see how else to interpret 'knock at your own risk' except as a threat of violence of some kind. 

I'd say that's a pretty literalist interpretation and read it as more likely to mean 'you're going to get an ear full so don't bother', rather than 'I'll stab you in the face' or some such.

The trend to embrace the literal interpretation and deliberately ignore other potential meanings of a word or phrase is something I've noticed more and more recently, particularly in the media, and usually when it provides an opportunity for faux outrage. I'm not accusing you of that in your post, it's just a general observation.

Quite a lot of people disapprove of Corbyn's stance towards terrorists in general. I'm surprised some folks are surprised about that. 

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Andrea Jenkyns is the MP for Morley & Outwood

 

[Rugeley Villa]

I've read about it before but in the mail today there was an article about Corbyn supporters who have made some very sick remarks and jokes regarding our armed forces. It's in some sick mock up magazine or something. They seem to have a big vendetta against our armed forces who they seem to see as the real terrorists.

[chrisp65]

7 hours ago, magnkarl said:

 Do your math and come back to me.

maths

if we're going to have a red hard and leggy brexit, let's do it properly

[darrenm]

4 hours ago, Awol said:

Quite a lot of people disapprove of Corbyn's stance towards terrorists in general. I'm surprised some folks are surprised about that. 

I'm interested to know more about Corbyn's 'stance towards terrorists'(?) Do you have any more information? As far as I thought I knew, he negotiated with the political part of the IRA at about the same time as Thatcher did and helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland. There's also something about him trying to do the same with Hammas in the middle east.

Do you have anything objective which shows him doing anything illegal or immoral?

[tonyh29]

51 minutes ago, darrenm said:

 As far as I thought I knew, he negotiated with the political part of the IRA at about the same time as Thatcher did and helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland

he played no part in the peace  , what Corbyn said in his own words were that he was talking to SF in the 80's when nobody else would ...and that years later when others released it would only be resolved by talking  it lead to the Good Friday agreement and thus he was proven right ...

corbyn even voted Agaisnt the Anglo Irish agreement in 85