Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[A Red]

Well, you only have to read the post he made to know why he's doing it. He said so. Basic rations. Why should he be spending his hard earned money, etc. He also spoke about Labour paying people to be in the pub.

 

He's not suggesting it as an act of benevolence and kindness.

Do you think he should be treated violently for these views?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Do you think he should be treated violently for these views?

Physically? In reality? No. Nor do I think racists, holocaust deniers, sexists, or any group from the 'nasty cunt' side of the scale should be physically hurt. They have the right to express their views.

 

I do think, however, that people should be able to react to such nasty extremism with anger and opprobrium. After all, they have a right to express themselves, too. I certainly don't think it's worse to react to nasty views in an insulting way than it is to post nasty views in the first place.

 

Still, I'm only responsible for my own actions, as I'm part if no fantasy extreme leftist cabal imagined up by some on here. I've certainly not got any issue with anything I've said in response. I just find it strange that some have such a strong issue with the reaction but no reaction to the original post.

 

If some people's idea of tolerance is allowing prejudice to go unchallenged, I'm not all that interested.

[A Red]

Physically? In reality? No. Nor do I think racists, holocaust deniers, sexists, or any group from the 'nasty cunt' side of the scale should be physically hurt. They have the right to express their views.

 

I do think, however, that people should be able to react to such nasty extremism with anger and opprobrium. After all, they have a right to express themselves, too. I certainly don't think it's worse to react to nasty views in an insulting way than it is to post nasty views in the first place.

 

Still, I'm only responsible for my own actions, as I'm part if no fantasy extreme leftist cabal imagined up by some on here. I've certainly not got any issue with anything I've said in response. I just find it strange that some have such a strong issue with the reaction but no reaction to the original post.

 

If some people's idea of tolerance is allowing prejudice to go unchallenged, I'm not all that interested.

Do you condemn those that would treat his views with violence?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Do you condemn those that would treat his views with violence?

I'd condemn them if they did treat his views with physical violence, of course. This view shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who posts here regularly. I often condemn violence, in all but the most extreme situations.

 

It's not the only thing I condemn, either. It's nasty views about the most vulnerable, or most needy in our society. I certainly don't feel ashamed of it.

[Gnasher]

Fuck all wrong with a bit of violence when it comes to nazis

 

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptxkVhDYog8

[Dr Nowt]

Viewing, and suggesting treating, the poorest and weakest in society as lesser beings, shows such incredible tolerance and decency. But just look at the nasty lefties not tolerating that right to a civilly used freedom of expression. You must only reply "I do not agree with you moosebreath, old bean, but will defend your right to speak in the manner of an absolutely awful human being until my dying breath, treating your views with utmost respect despite you lacking the same towards large groups of people you affect superiority over. Thank you for sharing those salient points; toasted crumpet?"

What you plainly have here is someone who frequents several football sites of which they don't share any interest in the team in question, purely to troll people with a caricature of extreme right-wing views, and receiving in a few cases debate, in many others the verbal abuse hoped for and in an isolated case by someone who appears to be a cretin, empty threats. He's not an existing member who happens to hold different views, he's not someone seeking out like-minded people to discuss what he thinks, he's just some twat who's decided to join up to a forum for the specific purpose of trying to piss people off. I think po-faced reaction to the effect that such a transparent case of WUMming shows how the left are overall intolerant of alternative views, is so desperate it's beyond parody personally, but each to their own.

Punching downwards in life verbally or through actions is repugnant, in my opinion people who act and speak inhumanely towards those more vulnerable and less fortunate than themselves deserve whatever verbal reaction they get, every generation sees the same ideological fight waged against the weakest and some speak up for them and some merrily see them go to the wall so long as they're ok themselves. The idea it's just someone innocently giving their opinion is the weakest of cop-outs, and people reacting aren't doing so because they're in the group who stand to lose the most, they're doing so because it deliberately seeks to offend a sense of decency towards those less well off than them. I'd love to know where the notion of champagne socialism fits in with those of us who're better off under Tory governments and yet find them and everything they stand for completely abhorrent.

Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom to only receive the reaction you like or for people to be patient enough to listen and endlessly debate with you. If someone has the time and patience to do so with such a waste of fresh air then more power to them, but calling him a cunt and voting with your feet seems a far wiser reaction in my view, respected or not.

[melons]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-conference-david-cameron-accidentally-says-tories-resent-the-poor-9768106.html

 

 

 

He told the hall: "This party is the trade union for children from the poorest estates and the most chaotic homes.

"This party is the union for the young woman who wants an apprenticeship" 

He went on to say: "For the teenagers who want to make something of their lives. This is who we resent."

 

 

Superb work there, Dave. 

[A Red]

The tramp in the street begging for a fiver to get some food. The reaction of some will be to walk by, others to give him a fiver, others to buy him a fivers worth of food.

 

Which one is the cunt?

[Skidfingers McGonical]

The tramp in the street begging for a fiver to get some food. The reaction of some will be to walk by, others to give him a fiver, others to buy him a fivers worth of food.

 

Which one is the cunt?

 

The one who walks by.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-conference-david-cameron-accidentally-says-tories-resent-the-poor-9768106.html

 

 

 

Superb work there, Dave. 

 

I spat my dinner out when I read that. He's had Milliband off in his speech though.

 

Let's look forwad to another 4 years of this lot and the loss of the Human Rights Act.

[Section_31]

The tramp in the street begging for a fiver to get some food. The reaction of some will be to walk by, others to give him a fiver, others to buy him a fivers worth of food.

 

Which one is the cunt?

I'd give him a fishing net.

[Red Phoenix]

Another 4 years of them? Surely it's impossible they'll get re-elected? Not that other parties will do hardly anything different of course.

 

The big thing that gives it away for me is that one party brings in whatever backwards and insane rules, laws, etc, and the other party go mental in opposing them. They really act like they care too. But when they get into power, do they roll back anything? If they do it must be hardly ever, they generally just go and make a load more that are even worse. What a fucking sham it really is.

[moosebreath]

Well, you only have to read the post he made to know why he's doing it. He said so. Basic rations. Why should he be spending his hard earned money, etc. He also spoke about Labour paying people to be in the pub.

 

He's not suggesting it as an act of benevolence and kindness.

I believe in rationing because I believe the welfare state should be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice. I believe that life on hand outs should be plain and joyless, so as to serve as an appropriate incentive towards getting people back into work, back earning money, feeling good about themselves and enjoying their lives. In that way I do feel rationing is benevolent albeit indirectly.

 

Long term it's certainly going to have a lot more positive impact on people's lives than trapping them into perpetual dependency which is all left wing welfare policies are ever going to achieve.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I believe in rationing because I believe the welfare state should be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice. I believe that life on hand outs should be plain and joyless, so as to serve as an appropriate incentive towards getting people back into work, back earning money, feeling good about themselves and enjoying their lives. In that way I do feel rationing is benevolent albeit indirectly.

 

Long term it's certainly going to have a lot more positive impact on people's lives than trapping them into perpetual dependency which is all left wing welfare policies are ever going to achieve.

Oh gawd. Hasn't this ignorant myth been dispelled enough for one lifetime?

[Red Phoenix]

Hahahah. Rationing. As if being on benefits is somehow a life of luxury as it is. moosebreath, what you're saying is borderline fascist. People need to have something other than rations or there'd be depression and suicide rates skyrocketing up and down the country. Not to mention the rise in crime. It's way too over the top of an idea. There has to be some money included so that people have at least something else, even if it's minimal. I mean if not, you're basically admitting that this place is a fucking prison of a reality, and that you'll notice that fact instantly if you end up out of work.

 

This might be what even the fascists themselves realise. If there's just rations the loss in money would be greater because of the chaos that would follow. They'd probably try something similar though if they thought they could get away with it.

[Jairzinho]

Everybody that doesn't have a job doesn't want one.

[Moctezuma]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefits-smart-cards-plan-revealed-by-iain-duncan-smith-to-stop-claimants-spending-welfare-money-on-alcohol-9763854.html

 

I realise moosebreath has caused a bit of a stir on this thread with some of his comments (the vast majority of which I don’t agree with), but putting that aside for a moment I often wonder how stuff like the pre-paid card plan even gets thought up.

 

Is it?

 

1) An idea floated by a policy think tank to see if it has any traction with the public?

Which can subsequently be found out via polling/surveys and then influence future policy making.

 

2) More grist to the media mill regarding the idea that those out of work or who are relatively poor are feckless and therefore can have the services available to them cut?

This makes sense for the conservatives as they implement the cuts that will be needed in their attempts to reduce the deficit whilst also cutting tax. The fact that they’ve managed to overshoot the deficit reduction aim for this year plus markedly increase the national debt since 2010 along with a cut in our triple A rating to Aa1 by the rating agencies combined with said tax cuts announced by David Cameron questioned yesterday by the FT as unfeasible makes you wonder whether their aims can be accomplished.

 

3) An actual policy idea?

 

If it is number 3 then you have to wonder who would actually come up with something like that. I remember speaking a few years ago to a lecturer in land management and agriculture who was an aide to the Scottish Government at Holyrood, he was vehemently opposed to independence and a natural Labour supporter but commented that the change in government to the SNP had been a revelation in terms of policy creation.

 

Beforehand under the Lab-Lib coalition they had been used to having policies just fired at them by various policy units attached to both parties if some of these “looked good/it makes sense” and signed off by the minister they were then implemented (this was done in silo’s by individual departments). After the SNP came in they reorganised the creation of policy so that every proposed idea has to go through a sieve for each department/area it was likely to affect i.e. what will it mean for the rural population, how would it effect policing/health/businesses etc. this is also done by pan governmental group representing each department so that conflicts could be resolved or the policy adapted so it was workable in all areas.

 

So where might Iain Duncan Smiths/some conservatives lackey policy of pre-paid benefits card go wrong?

 

• The infrastructure required, every food shop/cafe will have to have new software and systems installed to augment their credit card terminals, so as to filter the items can be bought. Who will pay for this? The government (as it’s a significant capital expenditure) or small businesses who may reject it (especially as the CBI is a large lobbying group in the conservative party)?
• Will the cards be usable on public transport (so people can attend courses and job interviews that will get them back into work), have they spoken to private companies about provision of this (again would the state pay)?
• Already stretched Policing may have to react to a black market in alcohol for those who use the cards and increase likelihood of crime so as to gain fund for cigarettes and alcohol. Brewing alcohol may become profitable for criminal gangs who I highly doubt will use industry standards when producing it, are the government ok with health services being affected by those who have consumed a load of methanol? Or clearing up after explosions caused by poorly controlled brewing processes.
• With increased likelihood of contraband coming into the United Kingdom have they asked customs and excise will they be able to cope? (given the contents of this BBC report they are completely unable to already due to reductions in staff).
• The individuals concerned, do they have a kitchen? Do they have access to a cooker? Do they have the capacity to store the food? Can they cook? Would Kitchen ware and courses have to be provided? Who would pay for these?
• How will being forced to use something that clearly marks you out as someone who is struggling financially do to peoples mental health, again have mental health services have been contacted given they already unacceptable lengthy waiting times (that have in part been reduced with the austerity measures)? have they consulted GP practices that are also facing the strain?
• Will this also mean that pensioners have this card? As they receive 46.32% (as of 2011-12) of the government welfare expenditure. That may not be particularly popular amongst conservative voters who naturally tend to be older (as they want to protect their assets).
• Who will decide which goods are viable? A body consisting of Doctors and Nutrionalists for food/drink perhaps? who will fund this body? How often will they have to review the goods that can be bought? With regards to clothing what is deemed necessary and un-necessary? This may vary in different parts of the country and is dependent on the adults and child’s activities.
• If this is being based on IT system everyone knows how effective the governments IT contracts have been in the past at creating capable working systems

So it clearly has been well though through.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Everybody that doesn't have a job doesn't want one.

And 'frankly, I don't won't one'.

[Moctezuma]

As a follow up to that post let’s have a look at Mr. Duncan-Smiths record in office:

 

 

First up universal credit a policy that may not even work in the manner it was meant to:

 

‘Iain Duncan Smith's flagship welfare policy, universal credit, is in danger of costing more than planned as it has a perverse incentive for people to limit their working hours in order to keep receiving benefits, a think-tank has said.

The Resolution Foundation said that families lose two-thirds or more of each extra £1 of earnings above the "work allowance" introduced under universal credit, up to 20 to 26 hours on the minimum wage.’

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/09/ids-universal-credit-welfare_n_5789200.html

 

Wikipedia’s take on it:

 

Whilst original estimates from the DWP planned for the administration costs for the rollout of Universal Credit were £2.2billion, by August 2014 this estimate was revised to £12.8billion over its "lifetime". At that date only 7,000 claimants were receiving UC. Much of the increased costs are associated with requiring to use both systems to continue paying out and the software problems. The rate of rollout has been much slower than originally proposed. This has led to the departure of several senior leadership figures in the program. Iain Duncan Smith has pronounced this process "a success."^[27]

 

Professor John Seddon, author and occupational psychologist, started a campaign for an alternative way to deliver Universal Credit on 24 January 2011 after speaking at a conference alongside a representative from the DWP. He made the case that you can't deliver high-variety services through 'cheaper' transaction channels, and argued instead that this would drive costs up. John Seddon wrote an open letter to Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Freud as the start of a campaign to call a halt to the current plans and, instead, to embark on a better (systems) approach.

 

Seddon started a petition in August 2011 calling for Iain Duncan Smith to "rethink the centralised, IT- dominated service design for the delivery of Universal Credit. Evidence from a significant number of housing benefit offices demonstrates that local, face-to-face processing of benefits is cheaper and faster than distant automated telephone and online processing. Processing claims face-to-face is not only cheaper and faster but an excellent way of ensuring that vulnerable people understand both their entitlement and their obligations. Feedback from claimants is overwhelmingly positive when their claim is dealt with face-to-face by an expert. If the DWP goes ahead with plans to process the majority of claimants online, they will find many claimants turn to Government-funded welfare organisations, council reception areas, councillors and their MP because the automated system will not be able to deal with their individual questions, particular concerns and unique set of circumstances".

 

Echoing these concerns, Ronnie Campbell, MP for Blyth Valley, sponsored an Early Day Motion (No. 1908) on 13 June 2011 on the topic of the delivery of Universal Credit which was signed by thirty MPs. It proposed "That this House notes that since only fifteen per cent of people in deprived areas have used a Government website in the last year, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) may find that more Universal Credit customers than expected will turn to face-to-face and telephone help from their local authority, DWP helplines, Government-funded welfare organisations, councillors and their Hon. Member as they find that the automated system is not able to deal with their individual questions, particular concerns and unique set of circumstances".

 

£425m of public money so far spent on the programme is likely to be written off according to Margaret Hodge and the public accounts committee.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/how-iain-duncan-smith-still-his-job

 

 

Also what’s that I spot? IDS spent £3.8m putting 100 claimants on onto "digital solution" for Dec 2014, that’s cost efficiency for you.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/353120/dwp-ict-apr-jun-2014.csv/preview

 

 

Sir Bob Kerslake (former Head of the Civil service) announces Universal credit 'undeliverable' and that Iain Duncan Smith presided over a "culture of good news" at the DWP.

http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2014/sep/26/universal-credit-undeliverable-says-former-head-of-the-civil-service

 

Misuse of Statistics and being told of by the UK Statistics Authority.

http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/letter-from-andrew-dilnot-to-rt-hon-iain-duncan-smith-mp-090513.pdf

 

Allegations by an unnamed "source" to the effect that IDS tried to strongarm 3 Tory members of the Commons committee investigating his department's colossally expensive IT fiasco to get them to blame his civil servants (in particular his Permanent Secetary) for the disaster in the committee's report, so as to shift the blame from him.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3915214.ece

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/how-iain-duncan-smith-still-his-job

 

In that select committee meeting some absolute mealy mouthed load of rubbish:

Iain Duncan Smith: I am sorry, Ms Jackson, that is simply not true. You are making a statement that is simply untrue. The Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for dealing with all of the most complicated cases on a daily basis. We have a lot of evidence and understanding, from both officials and from Members inside the Department at Caxton House, about how the nature of those relationships works. We are responsible for the sickness and disability benefits; we are responsible for people who have problems through Jobseeker’s Allowance and get disability benefits. All of those are parts of experience that we then bring. So that evidence is being brought to bear to define and be certain that what we are doing within Universal Credit actually works for them.

Glenda Jackson: But none of them are part of the initial roll-out of Universal Credit.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am sorry; I disagree fundamentally with what you are saying.

 

 

DoSac hole you say?:

 

Iain Duncan Smith: Can we just be clear? The point that the Welfare Minister made earlier on to Ms Gilmore was that that process, which was loosely described as "lobster potting", means once you are in-so whatever your change-you get it.

Chair: I understand that.

Iain Duncan Smith:Can I just finish, Chairman? Whatever your change, you get it.

 

Also good to see the pace of the project isn’t an issue:

 

Iain Duncan Smith: With respect, this Committee has constantly said they did not want to see us go too fast with this

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/uc569/uc56901.htm

 

 

Sanctions aplenty pity they have almost no way of taking into consideration external factors which can then leave people without payments for a month plus. Instead they should perhaps concentrate on enabling people back into work. Though given the consistent noises coming from the minister in charge of your department being all about scroungers and cheats it may become difficult for the employees not to get jaded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866

 

Bedroom tax blunders

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/27/bedroom-tax-benefits-claimants-smaller-homes/print

 

“I could live on £53 quid a week” well it turns out that you spent £39 on one breakfast, so good luck with the £14 pound for the rest of the week.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claimed-breakfast-1810086

 

 

The man behind the controversial bedroom tax lives rent-free in a £2million aristocratic country house.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-iain-duncan-smith-1794517

 

 

That is all just the tip of the Iceberg I wonder what else this incompotent has up his sleave?

[moosebreath]

Hahahah. Rationing. As if being on benefits is somehow a life of luxury as it is. moosebreath, what you're saying is borderline fascist. People need to have something other than rations or there'd be depression and suicide rates skyrocketing up and down the country. Not to mention the rise in crime. It's way too over the top of an idea. There has to be some money included so that people have at least something else, even if it's minimal. I mean if not, you're basically admitting that this place is a fucking prison of a reality, and that you'll notice that fact instantly if you end up out of work.

 

This might be what even the fascists themselves realise. If there's just rations the loss in money would be greater because of the chaos that would follow. They'd probably try something similar though if they thought they could get away with it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed anything else. They should be allowed whatever they want in life, they just have to earn it and pay for it themselves like everybody else.

[melons]

I came across this the other day, goes quite well with Moct's post. 

 

Iain Duncan Smith's 100 Biggest Failures.

 

http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2014/01/the-cost-of-ids-100-ways-iain-duncan.html

 

 

Unlike horse face's posts, it's actually got evidence!

[A Red]

I believe in rationing because I believe the welfare state should be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice. I believe that life on hand outs should be plain and joyless, so as to serve as an appropriate incentive towards getting people back into work, back earning money, feeling good about themselves and enjoying their lives. In that way I do feel rationing is benevolent albeit indirectly.

 

Long term it's certainly going to have a lot more positive impact on people's lives than trapping them into perpetual dependency which is all left wing welfare policies are ever going to achieve.

The problem with this is that there are plenty of people who might physically be able to work, mentally cant. At least they cant work for any length of time. Not because they are lazy or scroungers but have some form of mental illness. That is something that needs addressing.

 

The other problem is it is not for government to dictate what people cant spend their money on as long as its legal, regardless whether its money earned through work or benefits.

 

In an ideal world we would be able to isolate those that are indeed scroungers and pay them less in benefits and those that are not and pay them more. Until there is a sure fire way of doing this you have to treat them as legitimate needy.

[Red Phoenix]

Wow, have just seen that pre-paid benefits card bullshit. They're actually doing what moosebreath is suggesting? It's really hitting me now just how fascist the conservatives actually are.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed anything else. They should be allowed whatever they want in life, they just have to earn it and pay for it themselves like everybody else.

 

Yeah, you're not thinking it through properly. There has to be something else so that people can have even a shit standard of life, other than fucking rations. Look at what Moctezuma has already highlighted, it's a hugely overcomplicated process. People don't just need food, they need all types of items in order to survive at different times. Who works out what people need? This would have to be applied to shops up and down the country, and it would be chaos.

 

Two more things :

 

Firstly : what does stupid fucking cunt Smith think about alcohol, nicotine, and other addictions, he's just going to wave it away with a magic wand because his shitty card "can't purchase" those things? Seriously, give us a fucking break with this bullshit. What a fucking idiot, he knows this will cause problems, and that's why he's so fake. He knows it'll cause problems but he plays dumb instead. He's a criminal fucking cunt.

 

Secondly : what about when people can't buy a newspaper, or a radio, or a tv, or a laptop, or a pc? How are they going to be conditioned (and in some cases monitored.) without those tools?

 

Ahhh. You see, it's not so easy as just giving people a card, or fucking rations.

 

Especially as the financial district in London screws the country up making sure that people will constantly be out of work to some degree anyway. It's just a load of criminal bullshit and a waste of time even discussing.

 

Maybe they're after a violent revolution, because they will fucking get it if they keep pushing the people of this country like this. Then let's see how smart they are if millions of people are gathered in London, ready to disband parliament by force. What are they going to do once they've finally gone over the top? Order the military and the police to open fire? Offer them all out for a fight themselves? And what for? To keep their delusions of greed and control alive?

 

No, this is why things like crony capitalism do not work, and it's why this government and others that take part in it are doomed to failure.

[Jairzinho]

Wow, have just seen that pre-paid benefits card bullshit. They're actually doing what moosebreath is suggesting? It's really hitting me now just how fascist the conservatives actually are.

 

 

Yeah, you're not thinking it through properly. There has to be something else so that people can have even a shit standard of life, other than fucking rations. Look at what Moctezuma has already highlighted, it's a hugely overcomplicated process. People don't just need food, they need all types of items in order to survive at different times. Who works out what people need? This would have to be applied to shops up and down the country, and it would be chaos.

 

Two more things :

 

Firstly : what does stupid fucking cunt Smith think about alcohol, nicotine, and other addictions, he's just going to wave it away with a magic wand because his shitty card "can't purchase" those things? Seriously, give us a fucking break with this bullshit. What a fucking idiot, he knows this will cause problems, and that's why he's so fake. He knows it'll cause problems but he plays dumb instead. He's a criminal fucking cunt.

 

Secondly : what about when people can't buy a newspaper, or a radio, or a tv, or a laptop, or a pc? How are they going to be conditioned without those tools?

 

Ahhh. You see, it's not so easy as just giving people a card, or fucking rations.

 

Especially as the financial district in London screws the country up making sure that people will constantly be out of work to some degree anyway. It's just a load of criminal bullshit and a waste of time even discussing.

 

Maybe they're after a violent revolution, because they will fucking get it if they keep pushing the people of this country like this. Then let's see how smart they are if millions of people are gathered in London, ready to disband parliament by force. What are they going to do once they've finally gone over the top? Order the military and the police to open fire? Offer them all out for a fight themselves? And what for? To keep their delusoins of greed and control alive?

 

No, this is why things like crony capitalism does not work, and it's why this government and others that take part in it are doomed to failure.

 

Stop. I'm nursing a semi here.

[Red Phoenix]

Stop. I'm nursing a semi here.

 

Hahah, I actually loathe the idea of any type of violence, (am basically pacifist in outlook, although I'm not sure how viable that actually is in today's world.) but the chances of that happening are probably increasing rapidly if they keep this going. The thought of it actually freaks me out a lot, because if it happened there'd probably be quite a lot of bloodshed. Eventually though, I'd guess that the police and the military would just stand down, then the cunts in power would have to escape somewhere.

 

Then we'd probably get another bunch of cunts in instead shortly after.