Why does comedy lean to the left? Page 6

The mental health services report may be three and a half years old but it still happened. If I may, implying it's not relevant because of that is like saying a murder is too long ago so, therefore the culprit is no longer culpable.

I think the suggestion that housing benefit is likely to cause homelessness is important and indicates irresponsibility. If the Grenfell Tower tragedy taught us anything, it is that warnings should be heard and adhered to.

Dying claimants source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11828097/Thousands-of-benefit-claimants-died-after-being-declared-fit-for-work.html

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 5:24 PM

The mental health services report may be three and a half years old but it still happened. If I may, implying it's not relevant because of that

View original

That's not what I intended to imply. It clearly illustrates that there have been problems.

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 5:24 PM

I think the suggestion that housing benefit is likely to cause homelessness is important and indicates irresponsibility. If the Grenfell Tower tragedy taught us anything, it is that warnings should be heard and adhered to.

View original

But not every warning, and not slavishly. No doubt the Government has advice, analysis and warnings to the contrary on this issue, and they have calculated that the gains outweigh the negatives of the warnings you raise.

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 5:24 PM

Dying claimants source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11828097/Thousands-of-benefit-claimants-died-after-being-declared-fit-for-work.html

View original

Oh yes, I recall this now. Certainly grim numbers. However, as the article notes: "'no causal link' could be drawn between benefits status and the likelihood of dying as the individual causes of the deaths were not recorded".

I don't mean to sound dismissive: there's simply nothing concrete there. I'd be very interested if there were genuine numbers that correlate directly between why someone may have previously been out of work, and why they may then die. A substantial number would undoubtedly prove great failings in the system.

Quote: Aaron @ 22nd June 2017, 5:32 PM

That's not what I intended to imply. It clearly illustrates that there have been problems.

But not every warning, and not slavishly. No doubt the Government has advice, analysis and warnings to the contrary on this issue, and they have calculated that the gains outweigh the negatives of the warnings you raise.

Oh yes, I recall this now. Certainly grim numbers. However, as the article notes: "'no causal link' could be drawn between benefits status and the likelihood of dying as the individual causes of the deaths were not recorded".

I don't mean to sound dismissive: there's simply nothing concrete there. I'd be very interested if there were genuine numbers that correlate directly between why someone may have previously been out of work, and why they may then die. A substantial number would undoubtedly prove great failings in the system.

View original

It may be unfair of us to expect there to be concrete evidence. Even if the causes of death were recorded, it would still be difficult to tie it in with the work, as such effects are manifested in many different ways. Stress, for example, brings immunity down, so someone dying of pneumonia could still be a direct result of being forced into work unnecessarily, but it also may not be. The same goes for strokes and heart attacks, but even then the government could say it was hereditary and would have happened anyway. It's a complex issue, with lots of ways they can manoeuvre out of it.

To comment on an earlier point, as I reflect upon the grammar school policy (it's been kicked out now, of course, and wasn't popular with the Tories anyway, but nevertheless): one of the reasons I feel uneasy about it is that it does not take into account the pupils who are late-bloomers. Some kids may not be interested in particular subjects or even the concept of studying until they hit their teens. That happens so much, particular as they turn from children into adolescents.

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 7:46 PM

To comment on an earlier point, as I reflect upon the grammar school policy (it's been kicked out now, of course, and wasn't popular with the Tories anyway, but nevertheless): one of the reasons I feel uneasy about it is that it does not take into account the pupils who are late-bloomers. Some kids may not be interested in particular subjects or even the concept of studying until they hit their teens. That happens so much, particular as they turn from children into adolescents.

View original

The new policy was to have included additional routes of entry into grammars for just such children.

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 7:46 PM

It's a complex issue, with lots of ways they can manoeuvre out of it.

View original

And lots of ways that the opposition can lay blame where there is none.

Quote: Aaron @ 22nd June 2017, 8:21 PM

And lots of ways that the opposition can lay blame where there is none.

View original

How do you know there isn't any blame, though? You're simply being biased. Which, although I thought you were being open-minded initially, seems to have characterized your argument on several points. You are latching onto any sliver of excuse which may free the government of any culpability, instead of looking at the issue objectively. Demanding concrete proof in a situation which is far more nuanced is naive - though, as you are someone who is satisfied with the status quo, not unexpected or especially surprising.

For my part, I am not searching for flaws in what the Conservatives have done. I don't set out to feel angry, alarmed or worried for myself or anyone else. Unfortunately, however, I am disturbed by the idea that ill people are being forced into work by a government who care more for number-crunching than moral imperatives, and which have illegally instructed their employees to discriminate against those with mental health issues. I would feel the same if Labour did it, or the Lib-Dems.

I'm also awed in the quite ruthless benefit sanctions: for the person who was sanctioned for failing to complete a fitness for work assessment due to having a heart attack during the interview; for the man who was sanctioned for missing an appointment due to being in hospital with his wife who had just had a stillborn child; and the 60 year old veteran sanctioned for selling poppies in aid of the Royal British Legion for a few hours a day. And that's before I even mention the cardiac patient who was declared fit to work by benefit assessors, despite eleven letters from consultants and other medics, and went on to suffer his third heart attack just three hours into his new job. I find this chilling.

I'm not trying to score points in a party-political debate here. I'm not even talking about right and left. I'm talking about right and wrong.

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 9:02 PM

How do you know there isn't any blame, though? You're simply being biased.

View original

No, I'm playing devil's advocate.

If you (rightfully) point out that the complexity of the issue means government can try to manoeuvre out of some responsibility, then it is perfectly fair for me to point out the opposition can equally point a finger of blame where there isn't any.

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 9:02 PM

Which, although I thought you were being open-minded initially, seems to have characterized your argument on several points. You are latching onto any sliver of excuse which may free the government of any culpability, instead of looking at the issue objectively. Demanding concrete proof in a situation which is far more nuanced is naive - though, as you are someone who is satisfied with the status quo, not unexpected or especially surprising.

View original

Yes and no. I'm not an unquestioning supporter of either the Conservative party, or this or previous Conservative governments: and certainly not of Theresa May! But you have asserted a number of things as fact (like thousands of homeless 18-21s) that have been shown in your own referenced links to be, at best, an educated guess.

I completely accept that there have been some areas of policy that have created suffering. But I have little doubt that these are unintended and unfortunate consequences in the short term and whilst people, society, and departments adjust to the changes, rather than targeted and sadistic.

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 9:02 PM

I am disturbed by the idea that ill people are being forced into work

View original

Agreed. There are clearly problems with those assessments. That doesn't mean I don't agree with them in principle: just that the systems and criteria need further refinement and development in order to fulfil the end aim. It would be nice if they could be perfect off the bat, but that is - sadly - unrealistic. Meanwhile, it may also not be perfect, but is the appeals process not acting as a failsafe?

Quote: Dave @ 22nd June 2017, 9:02 PM

I'm also awed in the quite ruthless benefit sanctions: for the person who was sanctioned for failing to complete a fitness for work assessment due to having a heart attack during the interview; for the man who was sanctioned for missing an appointment due to being in hospital with his wife who had just had a stillborn child; and the 60 year old veteran sanctioned for selling poppies in aid of the Royal British Legion for a few hours a day. And that's before I even mention the cardiac patient who was declared fit to work by benefit assessors, despite eleven letters from consultants and other medics, and went on to suffer his third heart attack just three hours into his new job. I find this chilling.

View original

Agreed. I would wager these examples are due to nasty, high-handed jobsworth officials rather than the policy though, either in its intention or its wording: I can't comment specifically on the cases you mention here, but I've heard similar stories where the department has got directly involved and overturned those assessments, as they're patently ridiculous.

Quote: Aaron @ 22nd June 2017, 11:25 PM

I completely accept that there have been some areas of policy that have created suffering. But I have little doubt that these are unintended and unfortunate consequences in the short term and whilst people, society, and departments adjust to the changes, rather than targeted and sadistic ... It would be nice if they could be perfect off the bat, but that is - sadly - unrealistic.

View original

You may have little doubt, but I do not share your faith - which does, despite your assertions otherwise, seem to be unquestioning. You speak as though this process only started a few weeks ago. In point of fact, this has been going on for years and is still in force now. If, as you suggest, it is due to administrative adjustments, and such confusion is still ongoing, then all concerned must be astonishingly inefficient at running local and national government.

You have said yourself that you believe the state has too much power: well, this is a prime example. A film I, Daniel Blake had to be made in order for this issue to get the detention it deserved.

As for the jobsworth comment, I can only consider this an excuse, as it has already been proven that the government instructed - illegally, as it turned out - their staff to discriminate against claimants with mental illnesses in an effort to get as many people as possible off benefits. Therefore, it is quite clear to me that this all comes from the top.

On the matter of appeals being a failsafe: many claimants are unaware that this is a possibility. I know of people who had to be informed of it from the Citizens' Advice Bureau. The process takes many months, during which time those claimants go without the money they need, and the appeals themselves are often traumatic. For the fragile people who suffer from such mental, physical and emotional conditions, this is nothing but abuse.

Surely, you can see what is going on in your own country? You should not have to be told by a stranger online. Unless, of course, you already do know, and blithely dismiss such concerns in the same way you have done so here. If that is the case, I cannot think what must happen for you to finally see all that austerity - something, remember, which you claim does not exist - has done to huge swathes of the population. Maybe I am expecting too much. I don't mean to be personal, but perhaps a Grammar school boy from Berkshire isn't best placed to comprehend the punishing effects this government has had on the poor.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 12:44 AM

You may have little doubt, but I do not share your faith - which does, despite your assertions otherwise, seem to be unquestioning.

View original

I'm sure I do give them more leeway on many issues, as I do believe in their end goals.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 12:44 AM

As for the jobsworth comment, I can only consider this an excuse, as it has already been proven that the government instructed - illegally, as it turned out - their staff to discriminate against claimants with mental illnesses in an effort to get as many people as possible off benefits. Therefore, it is quite clear to me that this all comes from the top.

View original

From one example, it's "clear" that "this all" comes from the very top. Surely you can see that that is just as unquestioningly biased as you're saying I ultimately am?

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 12:44 AM

Surely, you can see what is going on in your own country? You should not have to be told by a stranger online. Unless, of course, you already know, and blithely dismiss such concerns in the same way you have done so here.

View original

There are great problems in this country. The Government is addressing some, attempting to remedy others, and completely ignoring others still. This discussion comes down to what I said, and you quoted, from a previous post: that we disagree on the best course of action to address them. What I see as regrettable consequences of some policies, you believe to be direct intentioned aims. Clearly neither of us is going to convince the other.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 12:44 AM

If that is the case, I cannot think what must happen for you to finally see all that austerity - something, remember, which you claim does not exist - has done to huge swathes of the population.

View original

Cuts exist. But that money has only been shifted from one area to another, so overall I repeat: there has been no austerity.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 12:44 AM

Maybe I may be expecting too much. I don't mean to be personal, but perhaps a Grammar school boy from Berkshire isn't best placed to comprehend the punishing effects this government has had on the poor.

View original

Well now you're exhibiting a very clichéd view of the area you imagine me to live in. Giant houses and leafy, quiet villages it certainly ain't. Industry, immigration and sprawling council estates is more accurate.

Quote: Aaron @ 23rd June 2017, 1:01 AM

I'm sure I do give them more leeway on many issues, as I do believe in their end goals.

From one example, it's "clear" that "this all" comes from the very top. Surely you can see that that is just as unquestioningly biased as you're saying I ultimately am?

There are great problems in this country. The Government is addressing some, attempting to remedy others, and completely ignoring others still. This discussion comes down to what I said, and you quoted, from a previous post: that we disagree on the best course of action to address them. What I see as regrettable consequences of some policies, you believe to be direct intentioned aims. Clearly neither of us is going to convince the other.

Cuts exist. But that money has only been shifted from one area to another, so overall I repeat: there has been no austerity.

Well now you're exhibiting a very clichéd view of the area you imagine me to live in. Giant houses and leafy, quiet villages it certainly ain't. Industry, immigration and sprawling council estates is more accurate.

View original

I think you give them more than just leeway. You handwave so much away that you must be straining your wrist. Myself, I've no reason to be biased, as I would love to be in favour of the government and not worry about what they are doing to so many people. Worrying isn't fun, after all. I'd support any government so long as they don't victimise the poor and the lame.

Firstly, I believe the benefit sanction issue comes from the top because there is evidence for that:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-mental-health-discrimination-pip-cuts-mobility-mind-a7629866.html

On the existence of austerity: How do you account for all the protests addressing the issue, the political commentators discussing it, the politicians defending it? Phillip Hammond said two days ago that the country is "weary" of austerity. Perhaps you should tell him there is no austerity. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he really should be told about that.

It is my belief that the government have added to the problems of this country. To see this, note the food banks, the protests, the complaints, the news, the testimonies. This has been a long, arduous seven yeas of collective misery. Labour's surge in the election was due to the fatigue that Hammond referred to, and May has been urged to soften austerity.

Not unreasonably, the Tories want to boast in elections that they have cut x amount of money. They will do anything to make that happen - even if it causes people to suffer. (They have, of course, actually failed in reducing the deficit by their target date of 2015 - it's been pushed back to 2025 now, so all the suffering was in vain).

Now, I'm going to be generous here, and say they may not be aware of the extent of the suffering. They may be so focused on getting government costs down that they are not paying enough mind to the consequences of their actions. You admit yourself, as a voter, that you give them leeway. Can you imagine what leeway they give themselves? Especially when they are pressurized from their bosses and they need to keep their highly-paid jobs and their careers on track? Let's go with that, if you can't tolerate the empathy thing.

As a point of interest, Nick Clegg wrote in his memoir that he believed the coalition should help poor families, but Cameron said, "Why would we do that? They will vote Labour anyway." Politically, that may be a valid reason, as it could be said that they should focus on the swing voters and loyal voters. On the other hand, perhaps helping Labour voters would get them on side and result in them voting Conservative instead.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 2:08 AM

I think you give them more than just leeway. You handwave so much away that you must be straining your wrist.

View original

We're starting to go around in circles here.

I think I've made pretty clear that I agree with you on the negative effects of some of the policies you've raised. Some are simply regrettable, and some sound pretty awful. I suspect the real difference is that you don't agree with the policy at all in the first place, so expect any criticism to result in total opposition to the policy. I do agree with the policies and see those negatives as side effects. Some awful, as I've said, but not ones that make the policy itself wrong.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 2:08 AM

On the existence of austerity: How do you account for all the protests addressing the issue, the political commentators discussing it, the politicians defending it? Phillip Hammond said two days ago that the country is "weary" of austerity. Perhaps you should tell him there is no austerity. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he really should be told about that.

View original

Again, circles. There have been cuts in certain areas. There is a message of austerity, of cutbacks, and of suffering, from the media. Just like certain papers' claims about effects of the EU or of the crimes of immigrants, that doesn't mean they're actually true when you look at the cold hard facts. The figures of Government spending simply do not support that there is true austerity.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 2:08 AM

It is my belief that the government have added to the problems of this country. To see this, note the food banks, the protests, the complaints, the news, the testimonies. This has been a long, arduous seven yeas of collective misery. Labour's surge in the election was due to the fatigue that Hammond referred to, and May has been urged to soften austerity.

View original

There are always complaints. There is always suffering. There are always people struggling to get by. (I found that far more evident in the Blair years than now.) That's not to dismiss them, but let's not act like they've suddenly appeared out of nowhere since 2010.

Labour's relative success in the election was more to do with the utter balls campaign of the Conservatives. Surely, if it were so related to the "misery" and the "pain" that people are suffering, it would have been a long-standing Labour gain, not simply a turn-around of the previous 6 weeks?

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 2:08 AM

As a point of interest, Nick Clegg wrote in his memoir that he believed the coalition should help poor families, but Cameron said, "Why would we do that? They will vote Labour anyway." Politically, that may be a valid reason, as it could be said that they should focus on the swing voters and loyal voters. On the other hand, perhaps helping Labour voters would get them on side and result in them voting Conservative instead.

View original

I've not read Clegg's memoir so can't really comment directly, but if it is as cold cut as you present, then I agree with you entirely. That's a shameful attitude for anyone to take, and perhaps part of the reason Cameron never managed to secure larger support and a more convincing electoral victory in 2015.

"There are always complaints. There is always suffering. There are always people struggling to get by."

This sort of attitude basically explains why I am not a Tory.
Despite clear evidence of spending cuts and a dramatic increase in poverty, hardships and actual deaths resulting from cutbacks, you seem to be bending over backwards to pretend it isn't happening.
The Thatcher, Major, Cameron and May governments have all failed on this score. A household that has a significant proportion of its members suffering like this is failing.
It doesn't work. Tory governments as a whole, do not work.

"The figures of Government spending simply do not support that there is true austerity."
They do. You were pretending inflation doesn't exist. It does.

"Surely, if it were so related to the "misery" and the "pain" that people are suffering, it would have been a long-standing Labour gain, not simply a turn-around of the previous 6 weeks?"

The last six weeks? The Tories have failed to win a majority in five out of the last six General Elections!

Quote: Aaron @ 23rd June 2017, 12:51 PM

We're starting to go around in circles here.

I think I've made pretty clear that I agree with you on the negative effects of some of the policies you've raised. Some are simply regrettable, and some sound pretty awful. I suspect the real difference is that you don't agree with the policy at all in the first place, so expect any criticism to result in total opposition to the policy. I do agree with the policies and see those negatives as side effects. Some awful, as I've said, but not ones that make the policy itself wrong.

Again, circles. There have been cuts in certain areas. There is a message of austerity, of cutbacks, and of suffering, from the media. Just like certain papers' claims about effects of the EU or of the crimes of immigrants, that doesn't mean they're actually true when you look at the cold hard facts. The figures of Government spending simply do not support that there is true austerity.

There are always complaints. There is always suffering. There are always people struggling to get by. (I found that far more evident in the Blair years than now.) That's not to dismiss them, but let's not act like they've suddenly appeared out of nowhere since 2010.

Labour's relative success in the election was more to do with the utter balls campaign of the Conservatives. Surely, if it were so related to the "misery" and the "pain" that people are suffering, it would have been a long-standing Labour gain, not simply a turn-around of the previous 6 weeks?

View original

Although the Tory campaign was indeed terrible, that is not the only factor of the result. I've read thousands of words on this and the consensus seems to partly attribute it the electoral broadcast rules kicking in and Labour getting heard. Previously, the right-wing media had not given Corbyn - as David Dimbleby put it - a "fair deal". Additionally, many young people came out to vote, and, for other reasons too, we came very close to winning the election. If Labour in-fighting and continued right-wing attacks on Corbyn had not happened, we may well have won. As it was, Labour had their best election since 1997.

If nothing else, a major indication of how successful Labour were in the election is seen in how the Tories are having to take note of what worked in the Labour manifesto. They wouldn't be doing that if they thought those particular policies weren't popular with the public.

Your denial of austerity, unfortunately, remains puzzling to me. If you claim it is a lie perpetuated by the media, then why have all these Conservative politicians been talking about it for seven years? Why hasn't it been debunked on Mythbusters?. If there is no austerity, surely the government would just say so and put everybody straight?

Your argument that there will always be poor people is one I often hear. But I am not disputing that poor people will always exist. What I am saying is that these brutal austerity measures have caused the poor to become even poorer. That's the problem.

To say I do not agree with such policies as those we have discussed is inaccurate. My view is less simplistic. As I've said before, I agree that people should not lead benefit-driven lifestyles and have multiple children just to necessitate it. I agree - for example - that any family should get benefits for two children only, though I think this should only apply to third child+ after a particular date. After all, the parents who can't afford to keep them anymore can't very well shove them back into the womb.

It is not, however, such 'scroungers' who are only being affected here. I am not in support of them - comparatively few as there are. It is the people who desperately need money to survive because they are either unable to work or unable to find work. The welfare system is a safety net, as we've agreed, but many people are having that net taken from them because the government are trying to save money at the expense of people's health, dignity and sometimes even lives. You may turn a blind eye to this, but I will not.

I don't mean for us to go around in circles, but that fault is not exclusively my own. Neither do I mean to convince you that you're wrong. This conversation - pleasingly free of any insults and passive-aggressiveness - has only ever been about me trying to understand the opposing view.

With your permission, after the next reply, we may as well head back to the comedy boards and discuss that. If you think I'm going on now, wait until you hear me talk about Rising Damp and Goodnight Sweetheart Such is the beauty of shared culture. Despite all that's happened here, we have a heck of a lot in common when it comes to our appreciation and knowledge of the history of British sitcom and would almost certainly get on like a house on fire were we discussing that instead. Until, of course, we start arguing about which party Jim Hacker actually belongs to....

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 4:28 PM

Although the Tory campaign was indeed terrible, that is not the only factor of the result. I've read thousands of words on this and the consensus seems to partly attribute it the electoral broadcast rules kicking in and Labour getting heard. Previously, the right-wing media had not given Corbyn - as David Dimbleby put it - a "fair deal". Additionally, many young people came out to vote, and, for other reasons too, we came very close to winning the election. If Labour in-fighting and continued right-wing attacks on Corbyn had not happened, we may well have won. As it was, Labour had their best election since 1997.

If nothing else, a major indication of how successful Labour were in the election is seen in how the Tories are having to take note of what worked in the Labour manifesto. They wouldn't be doing that if they thought those particular policies weren't popular with the public.

View original

This is a whole other discussion really, lots of very complex issues on both sides that go toward explaining the result.

Interested by your assertion that the Tories are taking note of the Labour manifesto. In what way are they doing this? The conclusion that the public are tired of austerity, or something(s) more?

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 4:28 PM

Your denial of austerity, unfortunately, remains puzzling to me. If you claim it is a lie perpetuated by the media, then why have all these Conservative politicians been talking about it for seven years?

View original

It's not exactly a lie, that's not what I intended to say. There are many narratives at work. As you said in your previous post, it suits the message of the Conservatives as a small spending, cost-cutting party. And again, cuts have happened in certain areas of spending, so these are valid discussions to have.

As for it being debunked, I've seen politicians challenged on it numerous times on numerous programmes. Daily Politics and Sunday Politics in particular.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 4:28 PM

Your argument that there will always be poor people is one I often hear. But I am not disputing that poor people will always exist. What I am saying is that these brutal austerity measures have caused the poor to become even poorer. That's the problem.

View original

I suppose, ultimately, I disagree with this - certainly as a generalisation. Living standards are being stretched (across the board), and that has been a big failing of the past few Governments, but the picture that's being painted of massive pain across the entirety of the country being so awful since 2010, is simply not one I recognise. Neither in what I see on television, read in the newspapers, nor see/experience first or second hand.

(That is of course excluding the instances we've already discussed where people are being unfairly affected, such as the disabled who are genuinely unable to work.)

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 4:28 PM

To say I do not agree with such policies as those we have discussed is inaccurate. My view is less simplistic. As I've said before, I agree that people should not lead benefit-driven lifestyles and have multiple children just to necessitate it. I agree - for example - that any family should get benefits for two children only, though I think this should only apply to third child+ after a particular date. After all, the parents who can't afford to keep them anymore can't very well shove them back into the womb.

It is not, however, such 'scroungers' who are only being affected here. I am not in support of them - comparatively few as there are. It is the people who desperately need money to survive because they are either unable to work or unable to find work. The welfare system is a safety net, as we've agreed, but many people are having that net taken from them because the government are trying to save money at the expense of people's health, dignity and sometimes even lives. You may turn a blind eye to this, but I will not.

View original

A genuine query then: what would you do?

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 4:28 PM

Until, of course, we start arguing about which party Jim Hacker actually belongs to....

View original

Just don't try to tell me Del Boy would have voted Labour. ;-)

As Chris says, Aaron, you seem to be bending over backwards to pretend that suffering isn't happening.

If you really aren't aware of it all and want to do something about that, volunteer at a food bank like I do, speak to people who are protesting about all this. At the very least, watch I, Daniel Blake, Alternatively, you can carry on burying your head in the sand and supporting the government which is causing this.

But I think I know which option you will choose.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 8:20 PM

As Chris says, Aaron, you seem to be bending over backwards to pretend that suffering isn't happening.

View original

Whilst you appear to be bending over backwards to find problems and criticise the Government. I'm sure Chris would hate the Conservatives even if they adopted every Labour policy, simply because they're the Conservatives.

Quote: Dave @ 23rd June 2017, 8:20 PM

Alternatively, you can carry on burying your head in the sand and supporting the government which is causing this.

View original

My support of them is limited. I would love it if there were a better alternative.