'I am Tory scum and a rabid socialist' blog discussion

Former_MSE_Helen

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "I am Tory scum and a rabid socialist" Blog.

Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

Miroslav

Bizarre.

I agree with Martin about the Philpott case. Stereotyping is dangerous. Are all football fans hooligans? Are all School Caretakers potential Ian Huntley's? And so on. All the Mick Philpott case taught us is that nasty evil people exist, and they exist in all walks of life.

Being accused of something on Twitter, Facebook or the internet in general is something that should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's just people wanting a reaction from their uneducated views.

millysg1

Your help on ISAs is great and is for people like me, not the rich. Im a 26 year old that works full time, paid to go to university out of my own pocket by working part time as my parents couldnt help and i was only allowed minimum student loan amount. Therefore I am lucky to have a good job for my age. Im also lucky to have lived with my parent (paying them rent) and saved for years after i finished university unitil i could afford a mortgage and buy a small house. Do we count our pennys, yes, do we have any debt (but our mortgage), no. We are definately not rich, and nor are our parents but we do earn enough to save monthly. We would love children but the only way we can afford to have kids if we save lots before hand so i can go on maternity leave. I dont think i should not get guidance on how best to handle my savings becuase i can save, because that doesnt mean life's still easy for me! I LOVE this website and Martin and check it out daily for guidance and help on all walks of life. Thank you Martin.

thelawnet

Philpott was being held up as a benefits scrounger a 6 or 7 years ago. He was all over the media as 'Shameless Mick'. Nothing new.

Equaliser123

Isn't the point about Philpott with regard to the welfare system that he had 17 kids in order to benefit financially. Not that he killed 6 of them (although wasn't he trying to get a bigger house?)

CKhalvashi

hot_potatoo wrote: »

His wives had the kids and they were working. He woudl have seen little benefit from living in a ting house with about 20 people, as I understand it he slept the conservatory. Had he had less kids he could have slept in a bedroom like a normal person. The benefits bit is just propaganda, lets face it he woudl have got more money if he told his wives to pack in their jobs (according to what I daily hear on the news that people on benefits are better off than those in work).

It's just propaganda, any fool should be able to see that, trouble is the vat majority of the population are beyond fools.

The stupidity of mankind is staggering when they swallow all this propaganda without thinking. Philpott was a striver he would have worked but for his criminal record and made one of his wives stay home, ie is a pretty traditional striving Tory really.

Whilst I agree with the principle of this, it's an extreme case here.

I know families with 4-5 kids, that work hard. Some struggle, some don't, but the more affluent of them don't claim any benefits, and are still worse off than the Philpotts.

I've mentioned on the forums several times now, how we're lucky to be in the position we're in, however surely with 2 children, there's been more time to put towards other things (such as work), and therefore more money to put towards other things. I certainly wouldn't want another 15 kids now, and I'm a lot younger than he is!

Something I will say Martin, is that if you're upsetting everyone, you're doing something right!

CK

Ken68

Yes Martin, good term ..tribalism, peoples need to be in a group, to belong to a family, a political party or trade union or trade association. The EU or the non-EU.
Maybe something to do with the intensity also. Like religions, the Jewish zealot, the Muslim fanatic, the Christian whatever. And the Queen can do no wrong thinking.

hunters

hot_potatoo wrote: »

His wives had the kids and they were working. He woudl have seen little benefit from living in a ting house with about 20 people, as I understand it he slept the conservatory. Had he had less kids he could have slept in a bedroom like a normal person. The benefits bit is just propaganda, lets face it he woudl have got more money if he told his wives to pack in their jobs (according to what I daily hear on the news that people on benefits are better off than those in work).

It's just propaganda, any fool should be able to see that, trouble is the vat majority of the population are beyond fools.

The stupidity of mankind is staggering when they swallow all this propaganda without thinking. Philpott was a striver he would have worked but for his criminal record and made one of his wives stay home, ie is a pretty traditional striving Tory really.

is this a new user name that you are striving to impress people with, doesn't work

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4538155

G6JPG

I see from the blog that you've "never been approached by Plaid or SNP".
\\
I think the financial implications (both positive and negative, for both Scots and the rest of us), are "the elephant in the room" at the moment; I realise it is far from clear what would happy yet anyway, but I think it's a subject that would be worthy of Martin's attention .
\\
(That and the non-direct-debit surcharge, but that's just me ...)

demystified

Yes, how shocking that people actually work for a living and put aside what they can in ISA's or other place to try and earn a pittance in interest on it rather than do nothing and wait for handouts from the state. Tory scum indeed.

hot_potatoo wrote: »

The stupidity of mankind is staggering when they swallow all this propaganda without thinking. Philpott was a striver he would have worked but for his criminal record and made one of his wives stay home, ie is a pretty traditional striving Tory really.

As opposed to your propaganda? I suppose we're to swallow that without questioning?

He was offered jobs but he turned them all down. Ergo, he didn't want to work and the benefits system needs reform. Q.E.D. I don't know whats so hard to understand about that.

meher

succinct, yet forcefully written and i completely agree

But i have pointed out the tribalism here over the mse forums big, big time. Where there is tribalism, it is not only scary but it also creates split factions, insists and expects loyalty.There would be no place for justice. i cannot say how strongly and passionately i feel about this and wish anything like that grows into a monstor should not go unchecked, anyone assuming charge and facilitating it should not be given a position of power - whilst this might seem on a micro level, it is very much the same scary tribalism that we set out to challenge and i really wish that this tribalism on this forum is also debated in the same spirit because injustice breeds injustice. Even if philpots doesn't necessarily represent people who live on benefits in perpetuity, they do represent people who indulge angry disengagement and that is a product of injustice.

Other than i completely agree and i am glad this is up for debate and discussion - it shows at least there are some people who focus on justice for ALL and not just apply fairness and welfare principles for a selected few and that is not tory scum, it is true socialsm. I was told off on dt for pointing out that lovely Gordon brown's bailing out the banks was actually socialism in its purest form because he (apart from being astute and shrewd) applied socialist principles that sets Britain on a different league among nations, which is welfare for ALL, not just for a section of folks who have chosen lead a life of being proactively dependent on the state. I disrespect any views that seek to monopolise justice for a selected sort of people - in my eyes they are amoral, not so clever, neither are they fit to be spokespersons for justice. The day everyone feels their lives are liberal and fair and just, would be the day that everyone shares the resources they have, quite willingly, to make the society bearable to live in - so long as we indulge in wealth grabbing from the wealth churners, instead of re-distributing responsibilities - illiberal to the wealth churner and liberal to the beneficiary, no one will be happy because that is gross injustice to the wealth churners and we certainly cannot say that we live in a welfare state.