What do you think Blairs action plan should be now?

Do you think he will now say that he is 'taking charge'?

It seems that the Labour spinners are blaming this on Iraq, maybe they should regard being led by a bunch of pathological liars as more in line with the truth?

I think he'll come to Sheffield and find out what our council is doing right which convinced the city to vote on local issues not blindly follow the right wing press and blame anything Labour for a war no-one wanted.

Originally posted by max
I think he'll come to Sheffield and find out what our council is doing right which convinced the city to vote on local issues not blindly follow the right wing press and blame anything Labour for a war no-one wanted. I hope you are right. I expect most of those in Sheffield who voted Labour did so because they always have, because their dad did and because they reinterpreted Karl Marx's statement: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is transformed into: "I can sit on my arse doing b**gger all and the state should make someone else provide me with everything I want".

(HELP! I think I'm turning into t020!).

... and Ecclesall Road (south) is God's own country

(Suspicion confirmed!)

In days gone by an officer and a gentleman would have been presented with a pistol and told to do the right thing, alas Blair is neither. ;)

Of course Labour were bound to win in Sheffield - they've promised to spend 80% of their budget on certain areas (Labour wards) and only 20% on the affluent SW areas. The wards promised all the extra cash were bound to keep Labour in - afterall, socialism is all about rewarding failure, and if they can vandalise fast enough make no mistake, the council will be along the next day to make it all new again. Shame about the state of the roads everywhere else though, and this will only get worse now that Labour are being blatantly biased to their own.

I think people in Sheffield who were considering voting against Labour probably cast their minds back a few years to when the Lib Dems were running the city. That will have given them second thoughts.

Why is that then?

Originally posted by t020
Of course Labour were bound to win in Sheffield - they've promised to spend 80% of their budget on certain areas (Labour wards) and only 20% on the affluent SW areas. The wards promised all the extra cash were bound to keep Labour in - afterall, socialism is all about rewarding failure, and if they can vandalise fast enough make no mistake, the council will be along the next day to make it all new again. Shame about the state of the roads everywhere else though, and this will only get worse now that Labour are being blatantly biased to their own.

I live in the 'affluent South West'. I am glad that Labour redistributes wealth across the city and I positively voted for the party that seeks to spend more in those areas where need is greatest. Socialism does not reward failure. It enables more people to have access to opportunities, creating chances for people to access wealth, education, health and other support services This is unlike the Tory party (and the closet Tories who call themselves Lib Dems) which seeks to restrict opportunites to the priviliged.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by t020
In the local elections, in Sheffield, probably a few seats. [/QUOTE

Does two count as a few?

So the moral of the story is work hard, earn a lot, and pay lots of tax to prop up the rest. Makes sense to me... Socialism just provides such an incentive doesn't it?

I don't have any real problem with money being spent in poorer wards. My main problem is the blatant bias which will mean roads and other public facilities in the SW will become neglected and will damage the area in the long term. "Evening up the balance" of the city shouldn't be about dragging down one part to the same low standards; it should be about maintaining high standards where they exist and not neglecting them whilst trying to raise standards where they are lower.

Originally posted by t020
So the moral of the story is work hard, earn a lot, and pay lots of tax to prop up the rest. Makes sense to me... Socialism just provides such an incentive doesn't it?

No. The moral of the story is that a society that believes in social justice should enable people as broad a range of people as possible to have access to opportunities. This is the purpose of socialsim.

Originally posted by t020
I don't have any real problem with money being spent in poorer wards. My main problem is the blatant bias which will mean roads and other public facilities in the SW will become neglected and will damage the area in the long term. "Evening up the balance" of the city shouldn't be through dragging down one part to the same low standards, it should be about maintaining high standards where they exist and not neglecting them as well as trying to raise standards where they are lower.

Evening up the balance isn't about dragging down the other areas. However, we all have to prioritise what we spend our money and the same applies to the Council.

Originally posted by Smiler
No. The moral of the story is that a society that believes in social justice should enable people as broad a range of people as possible to have access to opportunities. This is the purpose of socialsim.

How is feeding lazy people dole money going to increase opportunities? The example being set is that if you become a single mum you get social housing and plenty of benefits, so how does that encourage young people to work hard at school? Capitalism creates a genuine environment of opportunity whereby people are not restricted by the state and are able to provide their own wealth. Success is rewarded.


Originally posted by Smiler
However, we all have to prioritise what we spend our money and the same applies to the Council. [/B]

Which inevitably will lead to neglect in the SW, making it less desirable and therefore ultimately less affluent, i.e. dragging the area down. Surely the council can manage to spend on their treasured Labour voting wards without damaging other areas? One would think that with the ridiculously high amounts of council tax they receive this would easily be possible.

Originally posted by t020
How is feeding lazy people dole money going to increase opportunities? The example being set is that if you become a single mum you get social housing and plenty of benefits, so how does that encourage young people to work hard at school?

You seem to make several assumptions here. First, that people out of work are lazy - I'd like to hear the views of any forum members who are looking for work on this.

Second, that being a single mum is an attractive choice for young women. Please could you tell me what your experience of single mums is? How many have you asked? What independent evidence do you have for this?

Originally posted by t020

Capitalism creates a genuine environment of opportunity whereby people are not restricted by the state and are able to provide their own wealth. Success is rewarded.

True, for those who are in a position to access these opportunites. Socialism, as practised by this Government, seeks to enable a broader range of people to access these opportunities.

Originally posted by t020

Which inevitably will lead to neglect in the SW, making it less desirable and therefore ultimately less affluent, i.e. dragging the area down. Surely the council can manage to spend on their treasured Labour voting wards without damaging other areas? One would think that with the ridiculously high amounts of council tax they receive this would easily be possible.

Not true. you yourself said that Labour will invest 20% of its budget in the South West. This is an example of Labour prioritising investment where it is needed most, while continuing to maintain the wellbeing of more affluent areas. Not to mention the investment that is coming into the city centre, improving the local economy, which is good for all of us.

Originally posted by Smiler
You seem to make several assumptions here. First, that people out of work are lazy - I'd like to hear the views of any forum members who are looking for work on this.

The large percentage of people on jobseekers allowance have no intention of getting a job but are happy to sponge of the government at the tax-payers expense. Altho' I hate to agree with tO20 he is right in making that assumption for a percentage of people.

Originally posted by Smiler
Second, that being a single mum is an attractive choice for young women. Please could you tell me what your experience of single mums is? How many have you asked? What independent evidence do you have for this?

Come on don't be naive, of course that is what some young women do. Especially ones who don't want to live at home and would like a nice council house/flat of their own courtesy of the tax payer.

Smiler before you go to reply saying this statements are not true, they are a simple fact. I was bought up on a council estate, and I know many people who I went to school with in the case of the single mum argument that have done the same thing.

On the case of some people are too lazy to get a job and sponge of the state, this is also true. I know many people who have never had a stable job they are now in their 40's. It is also a well known fact, that those people who don't wish to work aim to contract a minor illness so they can claim disability allowance for the rest of their life.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
The large percentage of people on jobseekers allowance have no intention of getting a job but are happy to sponge of the government at the tax-payers expense. Altho' I hate to agree with tO20 he is right in making that assumption for a percentage of people.

I accept that some people abuse the system. I don't agree that most unemployed people are workshy, as you and t020 appear to be suggesting. I am attaching a couple of links that support my view.

http://www.psi.org.uk/news/pressrelease.asp?news_item_id=85
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/99summ.asp

[i] Come on don't be naive, of course that is what some young women do. Especially ones who don't want to live at home and would like a nice council house/flat of their own courtesy of the tax payer.

Smiler before you go to reply saying this statements are not true, they are a simple fact. [/B]

I disagree with your premise an several levels. I manage some supported housing projects, some of which work with young mothers. The reasons young women become pregnant are many and complicated. In my view, your suggestion that their motivation is to get a Council house is simplistic. If that option is so attractive why don't more people take it?

So because I am unemployed, I'm workshy according to skatiechick and t020?! WTF?!

Please feel free to remove your head from your arse! There are reasons why I'm currently out of work, PERSONAL reasons, I am NOT lazy, far from it... If only you knew the hardship I suffered while on the dole, which I had to go on because the DSS took my disability benefits off me when I announced my intention to enter the workforce, so I had to go on the dole in order to have an income!

I'll spare you the long rant filled story of what happened while I was on the dole, suffice to say the job centre is no place for a disabled person to try and get a job IMO.... They send you for completely inappropriate jobs all the time, and often for jobs that have already gone!

At least that's what they did to me, on a REGULAR basis! :loopy:

So don't come the all unemployed people are lazy workshys with me, I have busted a gut to try and get a job but employers are blinded by the fact that I am disabled and therefore don't even want to entertain the thought of giving someone such as myself a job.

Read the post, I didn't say ALL people I said a percentage.

I'm not workshy because I make biscuits for a living!!
But they are only the cheap Happy Shopper type...sorry t020 no posh biscuits here....

Give it to em Rich!!

I'm not sure how anyone can equate Sociliasm with Labour, especially Blair's New labour with improved added spin. :confused:
As to the unemployed. There is not a simplistic, cover-all answer for this.
Back in the 60's there was full employment and very few people were without work for more than aweek or twol. There was a stigma to being unemployed and the hard core unempoyed amounted to af ew hundred people. In the 70's workers would go on strike in desperation to try and save jobs (Miners,Steelmen, engineers at any number of companies) Those that lost that battle were promptly labelled as scoungers by right wing politicians and press. Ironic, really considering the contribution of those politicians to creating the job losses and the support they had from the press.
There followed a period of long term unemployment for many and we now have a generation for whom some's parents have never worked. There are now mixed reasons for unemployment..... there are still those who are victims of our economic system and yes, the "scrounger" label has become a self-fulfilling prophesy in many cases as there are those that have no intention of working.

We should look back to a period when people fought for jobs and were told quite bluntly that "there was no right to work".. ..Thatcher, Tebitt and other members of that cabinet made this comment many times. The existence of both categories of unemployed person today is a result of the policies of that time and their aftermath.

Blair is a D**k! My fella is in the Army and went to Iraq - He lost 4 good mates and for what? The Amercains? Would they do it for us? I think NOT!

here here.
specially when we know george bushe's daddy ,got him out of the army -did he pay or something.