32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Saw this on the BBC Wesbite.
In a nutshell, the Government is looking into forcing long term benefit claimants to do manual labour, such as gardening and litter clearing.
Now as you might now, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to things, but I do feel that this might just be a good idea, if handled correctly. As the report says, it's aimed at flushing out the bone idle and those falsely claiming. Personally, I've wound up on the dole 3 times in my 30 years, and I can't say I'd have overly objected to having to work for it. Well, as long as when I have an interview I'm allowed to go. Seeing that caveat as a given in such a plan, but of course this might be doing the government more justice than they deserve.
So what you guys reckon? Can you see any glaring flaws in the plan? Could it have other side effects, positive or negative? I reckon that if we get some of the oiks off their arses and doing community works, we might see a greater care for their environs. After all, if you've busted a nut to clean something, you're going to care a lot more if someone seems intent on mucking it up again. At least, that's theory!
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Well...
The UK has 5m people on out-of-work benefits and one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9m children living in homes where no-one has a job.
That would involve some serious costs. Are there places that would be set up to deal with it already? I'll have to look a bit further into the U.K.s system, but it seems a bit "damned if you do and if you don't".
There should be efforts to promote low level public service jobs instead of this relatively strange concept. I'm not saying that I think it is bad, and I often suggest that those receiving benefits should in some way support the society they are a part of. This may seem controversial, but a few hours a week volunteering locally really isn't too much to ask.
Staying busy is just better than being idle. It is a generally good idea, but definitely a tricky one to effectively put into use. Let me be clear, it really sounds as if more money will be spent forcing people to work full time, than the amount that maybe kinda could be saved. It will cost more than it makes. It will run at a loss, and I would be very surprised if that weren't the case.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
These plans are based on the assumption that all the benefits agencies pool their data and can put resources into getting the long term jobless into work. They don't, cannot, and will not.
People who make false claims and who don't want to work will not be affected, really, the system is currently designed so that honesty gets you zilch. The majority of data is not checked for accuracy. You can claim benefits you are not entitled to simply by checking the correct boxes on a form.
Staff at these agencies have no interest in validating or substantiating claims.
I have been in the unhappy position of being jobless twice in my life, on both times I have been affected by and have seen shoddy dealing and mismanagement, Speaking with others in the same situation I have learnt that people who con the system repeatedly get away with it knowing that if anything happens there will always be something for them to claim.
The scroungers will watch the updates to this plan on their paid by the state plasma screen TV's with derision.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Its a good idea.
Work for your money you stinky doleys!
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
It would probably be easier that every time someone went in to collect their payments they were just put on a bus and taken somewhere that needed cleaning/etc, then they are paid at the end of the day.
And make it so they need to go in every day to get their benefits 
8471
Post by: olympia
In theory aren't the people supposed to be out looking for a job? It's hard to do that if you have to pick up trash 30 hours a week.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Well, yeah. But if you knew you'd have to work for your benefits, you would probably rather just get a job, as dole money is pretty gak. It's like £80 a fortnight.
The problem with the situation as it is now, is that it's treated as free money. I am a child of the Blair era - I was in my teens when he came to power, and Labour seemed to change the whole benefit culture. Everyone I knew claimed dole as soon as they turned 18. It was like a rite of passage. We thought it was a lark - we described it as free money. Even before you turn 18 you get EMA, which is basically a bribe for going to college, as if educating yourself wasn't incentive enough. There's also Income Support, Tax Credits, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Incapacity Benefit... the welfare state is a trough. It's money for nothing. In a wealthy country like the UK, there should be no excuse to sit on your arse taking money out of the pockets of your fellow man. There are jobs out there if you have the desire to work. People need to grow up and stop blaming the Credit Crunch. I get up every day a 5am and do a job I hate, just to put me through university at age 28. I didn't go when I was 18 because the system doesn't punish people for making crappy choices. There is no price for failure. I am acutely aware that my education is being partly subsidised by the tax-payer, so I work my arse off to get the best grades possible, and I take nothing for granted. It's a shame the same can't be said for the rest of my fellow students.
To many kids in my generation, sponging off the tax payer was presented as a right, and I'm sorry to say, we found it hilarious. We used it to score drugs and get pissed. I hear kids bragging about stuff like that all the time, even now. The only thing is, now it's firmly entrenched within the culture, as successive generations have followed that pattern. You now have whole families in which no-one has ever had a job.
That's vile.
You can claim dole if you're living at home with your parents (at least, you could when I was a kid, dunno if it's still like that) - so where's the incentive to move out and get a job? It shouldn't be allowed. I think the Spanish have welfare rules slightly better than us, in that you can't claim dole until you've worked for a certain length of time. We should have that, and we should make it contingent upon not being fired or quitting your job, so the only way you find yourself out of work is through no fault of your own.
We should heavily stigmatise welfare claimants - it should be something that NO-ONE wants to do. It should be a difficult, harsh existence. Hunger is a great motivator.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Albatross wrote:It's like £80 a fortnight.
Is that when the government decides every so often to declare an evening a "fortnight," where they take as many citizens as they can and go out building forts, especially against those north of Hadrian's Wall?
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
It's closer to £130 a fortnight.
I think Allba is possible a little more wound up by it than I am, but I do mostly agree.
What really, seriously pisses me off is when they complain that they can't afford luxuries on their benefits. Well, good quite frankly. They are a luxury for a reason you know.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Mr Mystery wrote:It's closer to £130 a fortnight.
I think Allba is possible a little more wound up by it than I am, but I do mostly agree.
What really, seriously pisses me off is when they complain that they can't afford luxuries on their benefits. Well, good quite frankly. They are a luxury for a reason you know.
Well... for 130 English dollars ever time they build a fort in the evening, they can get:
2 boxes of Daemonettes of Slaanesh.
A Greater Daemon of Slaanesh.
2 boxes of Seekers of Slaanesh.
A Soul Grinder.
That assumes a person starves to death or learns how to eat rocks.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
No need to eat rocks. The eating of the sprue is a time honoured GW employee ability.
It's true.
23400
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
I know in america it is stupidly easy to get placed on disability pay.
15594
Post by: Albatross
WarOne wrote:Albatross wrote:It's like £80 a fortnight.
Is that when the government decides every so often to declare an evening a "fortnight," where they take as many citizens as they can and go out building forts, especially against those north of Hadrian's Wall?
Yes. They give you close to £130 each time.
@Mr. Mystery - Crikey! It's gone up to that much? That's mental!
Yes, I find it annoying. It doesn't keep me up at nights. It's just angers me that we spend so much on welfare in this country - it was running at £190bn a year! That's more than the nominal GDP of most countries in the world, according to the list of 190 national economies in the CIA World Factbook! Just crazy.
NO country needs to spend that much on welfare, no matter what blinkered socialists say.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
As a socialist, even I see blatant abuse of the system.
But I'm pretty sure your total figure is a bit off matey.
Personally, I'm in favour of a voucher system. Rather than give them money, which can be spent on anything, the Government ensures that all the true essentials of life (water, food, shelter etc) are provided, and if you want something beyond that, you'll have to get up off your arse and work for it. Like the rest of the population.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you're having genuine trouble getting into work (it can happen!) then you can go and do some work for the council to earn a little cash. And having earnt it, you can do as you wish with it. At least you're not getting it for nothing that way.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Mr Mystery wrote:As a socialist, even I see blatant abuse of the system.
AHAH! YOUR A SOCIALIST!
In England...
Which is in Europe...
Sorry. False alarm. If you were an American, then we would have a problem. 
15594
Post by: Albatross
Mr Mystery wrote:As a socialist, even I see blatant abuse of the system.
Yeah, that wasn't directed at you, necessarily. That's why I said 'blinkered' socialists - tribal reds who just swallow the party line because their dad did, and HIS dad did ad nauseam. That's not to say I have even the remotest iota of respect for socialism, or the political beliefs of British socialists in particular. I just think it would be foolish to believe that all people who identify as socialist feel exactly the same about the policies of Labour.
But I'm pretty sure your total figure is a bit off matey.
Really?
London Evening Standard wrote:A single family pocketing £104,000 in housing benefit to live in London's wealthy Mayfair district was cited by George Osborne as evidence of the welfare state running out of control.
He promised a bulldozer-series of reforms to the mountainous £192 billion welfare bill, aiming to cut off payments to the better-off and those collecting needless amounts at the expense of struggling taxpayers.
Source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23847844-chancellor-takes-a-bulldozer-to-britains-pound-180bn-welfare-bill.do
Reuters wrote:Rejecting opposition criticism that the cuts were too severe and would hit the most vulnerable people hardest, Alexander said the 200 billion pound annual bill for unemployment payments and other benefits was too big to be ignored. "Welfare is an area that we have to look at," he said in an interview with Sky News. "Tackling the enormous deficit that Labour left us with is essential to underpinning the economic recovery. If we don't do that...then we would end up in a worse economic position.
Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE68B0RQ20100912
Personally, I'm in favour of a voucher system. Rather than give them money, which can be spent on anything, the Government ensures that all the true essentials of life (water, food, shelter etc) are provided, and if you want something beyond that, you'll have to get up off your arse and work for it. Like the rest of the population.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you're having genuine trouble getting into work (it can happen!) then you can go and do some work for the council to earn a little cash. And having earnt it, you can do as you wish with it. At least you're not getting it for nothing that way.
Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Alternatively, you could just make welfare recipients wear a big tabard that says:
IF YOU'RE READING THIS, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU FEED ME.
Too much?
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
For some of them, not so much.
And don't worry about the top bit. Wasn't feeling tarred by your brush! Socialism to me requires the partner of social responsibility, you know, I look after the state, it looks after me type thing. Not mindless parasites.
And fair enough on the bill size!
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
As a stinky doley...
well long term sick am genuinely worried by what I am hearing.
There are definitely people who are genuine and the people taking the pee.
The latter will as stated continue to work the system and genuine people get stitched over. Just a hunch.
The thing that concerns me is that this is all taking place at a time of swingeing government cutbacks.
People are going to be made unemployed, then asked to do a job or lose benefits. This seems like crazy thinking but what can one expect of a Tory. They already had a job till you pillocks took it away 
For the record I already volunteer and try to give something back. It isn't enough , but I cannot always manage the few hours I give.
Anyway
this time next year it will be the Almshouse for poor wretches such as like likes of me Guv'na, lawkes a lummee!
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
But why should you just be allowed money for literally nothing? Why shouldn't it be in exchange for work?
Joking apart, this is exactly the mindset that needs to go. Benefiits for a start are misnamed. Why should anyone benefit from being unemployed? I work for a living, because it makes me money, which I can then go spend. Why should there be the option of not working, yet still making money? What would be different between my full time wage, and being asked to do some work for Jobseekers money? I see none, other than a bizarre expectance that benefits require nothing from the recipient.
And if your out due to injury or illness, you get a different set of allowances do you not?
15594
Post by: Albatross
It's mental isn't it? To think that we have to make defence cuts in a time when the UK is at war, and the decisions taken could cost lives... And we're spending THAT much on people who just want to leech?
When I see chavs loafing about drinking cans of Stella at 11am, I just want to scream at them. Selfish fething losers. They are a blight on our country.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Mr Mystery wrote: Socialism to me requires the partner of social responsibility, you know, I look after the state, it looks after me type thing. Not mindless parasites.
This, essentially, is how it should work.
Anyway, I think that if this is handled correctly (which, given the inevitable screw-ups that various governments make regularly, it won't be) it could be a good idea. The people who want to work get to work and the people that don't have to anyway.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
Bad Idea. it sounds good, but so does communism. Soon you'll have people being serfs or being forced to work for pennies on the pound. You'd just end up with poor people and minorities who can't find a real job, so for forced to work this BS because nobody will hire them.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Make them wear "wellfare clothes" and give them food stamps for Asda that cant be spent on booze or fags or scratchcards. Absolutely ZERO hard cash should end up in their hands.
Seriously. My system is flawless.
Issue them a "clothing allowance" they can spend at government places for the essentials. Shirts, pants, socs, underwear, they issue you it all when you join the army, same principal. The central govt could buy 100,000 T-shirts off Mike Ashley for about 50 grand.
If you took away their ability to get booze, fags, designer clothes and gambling, they would soon get back to work.
And if you provide them with food, medical care, clothing etc.. then you are surely not neglecting them?
15594
Post by: Albatross
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:As a stinky doley...
well long term sick am genuinely worried by what I am hearing.
Well, if you're genuinely sick then why should you be worried? No-one's complaining about ill people leeching off the system. Can you work? If the answer is 'no', then I have absolutely zero problem with you claiming state assistance, nor should anyone. I think as a civilised country, we should provide a baseline of care for our most vulnerable citizens - I am a firm supporter of the NHS for example, although I would like to see reform. You should be as angry as anyone about it, Chibi. The drunks, smackheads and spongers who falsely claim Incapacity are spoiling it for people like you who the system is intended to help.
The thing that concerns me is that this is all taking place at a time of swingeing government cutbacks.
People are going to be made unemployed, then asked to do a job or lose benefits. This seems like crazy thinking but what can one expect of a Tory. They already had a job till you pillocks took it away
Mate, that's Labour logic. The jobs you're talking about should never have been created, we can't afford to sustain a public sector as big as ours is. That's WHY we have to make cuts.
To draw a crude analogy - coming off heroin is a painful and difficult process for junkies. If they hadn't got themselves addicted to smack in the first place they could have avoided that pain and difficulty. The public sector is a junkie blaming the people trying to rehabilitate it.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Defence cuts will also put more people out of work.
This will filter through the system as well.
So you are saying that it is good to make people work when there are jobs being axed?
That makes less sense.
I agree, there are some who just leech. These proposals won't affect them, but will potentially impact on those the the government is making redundant. If there is a recession there will be people still unable to find work in 6-12 months time. That puts hard working people in the "Stonky Doley" long term unemployed category.
They will then be expected to do a menial job instead of the one they were doing
Genuine people will already be doing what they can. My concern is they will be hit hardest.
TBH I don't totally disagree. Something needs to be done.
It is the wrong method at the wrong time imho
Again for the record, I don't have any tv let alone a plasma screen. Anyone who is on the rock and roll but not concerned about basics ie rent, heating, food and clothing is very possibly screwing the system over or I'm doing something very wrong.
PS don't drink, smoke, do drugs, go whoring or gamble.
no car either. Clothes are non label generic types.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
sexiest_hero wrote:Bad Idea. it sounds good, but so does communism. Soon you'll have people being serfs or being forced to work for pennies on the pound. You'd just end up with poor people and minorities who can't find a real job, so for forced to work this BS because nobody will hire them.
In Britain, we have a minimum legal wage. Set the benefits work to that (£5.95 an hour now for over 25s I believe) and bingo, no more 'indentured labour'.
Indeed, the Government is then merely guaranteeing your income.... And how can anyone find fault in that?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
mattyrm wrote:Make them wear "wellfare clothes" and give them food stamps for Asda that cant be spent on booze or fags or scratchcards. Absolutely ZERO hard cash should end up in their hands
The problem with stamps is that you quickly get a black market. Otherwise I would agree with you on welfare stamps/government shops etc. Edit: although some kind of "chip and pin" system might help here - no idea.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
sexiest_hero wrote:Bad Idea. it sounds good, but so does communism. Soon you'll have people being serfs or being forced to work for pennies on the pound. You'd just end up with poor people and minorities who can't find a real job, so for forced to work this BS because nobody will hire them.
Fair point, actually. The big problem with this, in my view, is that it may well end up punishing the people who genuinely cannot find a job, and have been looking. How do we draw the distinction between them and the minority of "spongers" who are causing the problem?
EDIT: Also, I believe someone pointed this out earlier, but minimum wage laws would have to apply to this work if it took place.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Albie
It isn't just Labour
The rise in adminstrators was instigated in the Thatcher era.
As for the stamps etc
To be out of work for long periods is bad enough. Again people who have genuine cause to be unable to find work will become further stigmatised.
It's a crackpot idea with zero merit.
Will just ctreate another layer of beaurocracy to administer for no real purpose but to humiliate good people.
signing off from this thread as it bodes ill for anyone in my position.
You would be condemning a lot of innocent people to unwarranted poverty and misery.
Good fun for you to take the piss out of people less fortunate than yourselves I suppose but I come to expect no less from such a rabid, egotistical bunch of uncaring crudmunchers.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:sexiest_hero wrote:Bad Idea. it sounds good, but so does communism. Soon you'll have people being serfs or being forced to work for pennies on the pound. You'd just end up with poor people and minorities who can't find a real job, so for forced to work this BS because nobody will hire them.
Fair point, actually. The big problem with this, in my view, is that it may well end up punishing the people who genuinely cannot find a job, and have been looking. How do we draw the distinction between them and the minority of "spongers" who are causing the problem?
The people genuinely wanting work wouldn't bat an eyelid. As I said before, I'm happiest when I'm working. Gets me out the house, gives me something to do.
Indeed, I couldn't help but be suspicious of someone trying to get out of this should it come into force.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
SilverMK2 wrote:mattyrm wrote:Make them wear "wellfare clothes" and give them food stamps for Asda that cant be spent on booze or fags or scratchcards. Absolutely ZERO hard cash should end up in their hands
The problem with stamps is that you quickly get a black market. Otherwise I would agree with you on welfare stamps/government shops etc.
Edit: although some kind of "chip and pin" system might help here - no idea.
Thats not a problem, thats awesome!
If i went to Morrisons and some doley offered to get my groceries for half their price if i give him cash for coupons, then we both win!
He will (eventually) realise that food is essential and he cant get buy on 50% of his coupons just cos he wants booze, and we get our shopping cheap! 
15594
Post by: Albatross
All I'm saying is that if you want to work in this country there are jobs. It's just a fact.
My job sucks arse. It's terrible. I'm a contract cleaning supervisor for an office cleaning company. Dull, dull, dull and not very well paid. But the bills must be paid, and I couldn't afford to educate myself and go on to a better-paid, more enjoyable job if I didn't do the crappy one I have now. Despite that, I have a pretty good life - me and Mrs. Albatross have a mortgage on a house in a decent area, we go on holiday every year, we don't really go without anything...
But we work hard for it, and that means sometimes doing things you don't want to do. It's something that successive generations seem to be losing sight of. Everyone seems to expect a free ride.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I hate that word "progressive" how can it be progressive when it is so bloody stupid?
Socialism doesnt work, and every single time the labour party take over they bankrupt the country, what on earth is "progressive" about staggering financial incompetence?!
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Socialism does work though. It's just the right wing press tend to focus on it's cockups and pisstakers more than it's successes (hello Minimum Wage...good little idea that).
But, enough about socialism and who may or may not have done what, lets stick to the topic chaps.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Albie
It isn't just Labour
The rise in adminstrators was instigated in the Thatcher era.
Yeah, I love this game.
'It wasn't us who caused the financial crisis, it was Thatcher's policies.'
'The Tories slashed defence spending first.' etc. etc.
After 13 years, you don't get to blame the previous administrations. After that long it becomes your fault for not fixing it when you had the chance. Y'know, the sort of thing the Tories are being villified for right now? Actually FIXING stuff?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @matty - Oops. 'Successive', not 'Progressive'.
I'll go back and change it.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
The Banks being irresponsible arsehole knackered the country, end of that one.
But even if this was a Labour policy, or a Lib Dem idea etc, it still remains fundamentally sound. You either agree, or disagree regardless of political leanings, no?
29374
Post by: syanticraven
How about less of the blame and more on the fixing.
I hate to watch any kind of broadcast where it seems they spent many many man hours on blaming others instead of doing something actually useful.
I mean I like to know who to point my hairy fist and scream some obscenities at, but not as much as I like getting myself out of the hole first.
I like the idea in theory but I don't think it could work out plausibly but I have spent all of 5 minutes thinking over it.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
mattyrm wrote:I hate that word "progressive" how can it be progressive when it is so bloody stupid?
Socialism doesnt work, and every single time the labour party take over they bankrupt the country, what on earth is "progressive" about staggering financial incompetence?!
*cough* NHS *cough* minimum wage.
Man, sorry about that, I've got one hell of a cold.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Mr Mystery wrote:The Banks being irresponsible arsehole knackered the country, end of that one.
Our banks didn't start it, but they certainly didn't help. It's worth noting that the UK gov't didn't actually re-capitalise all the problem banks, they just agreed to underwrite potential losses incurred up to a certain limit. The welfare bill on the other hand, is real money, paid out every year. Our sovereign debts made our recession waaaay worse than it should have been.
But even if this was a Labour policy, or a Lib Dem idea etc, it still remains fundamentally sound. You either agree, or disagree regardless of political leanings, no?
Yes.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Make them wear "wellfare clothes"
Perhaps we can put a yellow symbol or a scarlet letter on the clothes to help differentiate them as less than human since they need some help.
Also: you can use food stamps (or whatever your local area calls it) to buy alcohol and cigarettes in the UK? While I don't know if it is universal, in my state you can not use food stamps (ok, it is a debit card these days) on either of those items.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:mattyrm wrote:I hate that word "progressive" how can it be progressive when it is so bloody stupid?
Socialism doesnt work, and every single time the labour party take over they bankrupt the country, what on earth is "progressive" about staggering financial incompetence?!
*cough* NHS *cough* minimum wage.
Man, sorry about that, I've got one hell of a cold.
Christ, don't get him started on THAT!
Also *cough*liberalnotsocialist *cough*
Woah, that cough is spreading. Better get myself to BUPA. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:Make them wear "wellfare clothes"
Perhaps we can put a yellow symbol or a scarlet letter on the clothes to help differentiate them as less than human since they need some help.
Also: you can use food stamps (or whatever your local area calls it) to buy alcohol and cigarettes in the UK? While I don't know if it is universal, in my state you can not use food stamps (ok, it is a debit card these days) on either of those items.
We don't have food stamps here. You get cash paid into your bank twice a month.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
This was New Labour policy back in the late 90s. When did they stop doing it?
15594
Post by: Albatross
New Deal? What a pisstake. I remember doing New Deal for Musicians. Didn't feel much like work.
Also,
@Ahtman - An American lambasting Brits for stigmatising welfare recipients? Kind of feels like I logged into BizzarroDakka by accident!
'On BizzarroDakka, codex creep complains about YOU!'
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
New Deal, YTS, all failed, so we can lay that one to rest.
Simply put, there is no easy answer to the extent of the welfare state. Over time and for a number of reasons, some communities have become entirely dependant upon it due to collapse of industry. Take the mining towns. Desolate hell holes with no real industry left. The people there are in a very different situation to say, someone in London or any city where work is indeed out there. So this naturally complicates things.
But I still fail to see how a unilateral 'get off your arse and do some bloody work for your benefits' is a bad thing?
15594
Post by: Albatross
It makes you akin to the Nazis, apparently.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Albatross wrote:We don't have food stamps here. You get cash paid into your bank twice a month.
As I stated, I don't know what the name for it is as I know they aren't actually food stamps but that is still the common parlance when discussing them in the states. I believe that you get an account and a government debit card these days which gets money deposited into it at certain intervals. This card can only be used at certain places. It will work at grocery stores but not an electronics store, for example. I imagine that depositing straight to the bank would keep the common event of people trading their food stamp money for real money.
Albatross wrote:An American lambasting Brits for stigmatising welfare recipients?
I didn't think I was lambasting Brits, just ribbing mattyrm a little. If anything nationality has nothing to do with the point at all.
But I still fail to see how a unilateral 'get off your arse and do some bloody work for your benefits' is a bad thing?
The problem is that it assumes that everyone that uses government help is a lazy jerkoff when that is not true. Sure, some people abuse it but does that mean we should ignore everyone that doesn't? Should we tell a single mom who just got her job outsourced that her kids don't get to eat because some other donkey-cave screwed over the system? We can always get better about making sure that we catch the jerks that do abuse it, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to all the good people who do work hard and having a spot of bad luck.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Albatross wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:mattyrm wrote:I hate that word "progressive" how can it be progressive when it is so bloody stupid?
Socialism doesnt work, and every single time the labour party take over they bankrupt the country, what on earth is "progressive" about staggering financial incompetence?!
*cough* NHS *cough* minimum wage.
Man, sorry about that, I've got one hell of a cold.
Christ, don't get him started on THAT!
Also *cough*liberalnotsocialist *cough*
Woah, that cough is spreading. Better get myself to BUPA.
Izzat so? Perhaps I need to re-study my political theory, but I always took it for granted that the NHS was a pretty good example of Socialist policy. It is, after all, meant to aid those who would not be able to pay for private treatment.
Well, whatever. Either way, I'm gonna go take some cough medicine.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
It could be argued that the sheer extent of the NHS means many are using it unnecessarily.
It's always been a personal policy of mine that as soon as I can afford it, to take out private health insurance, so that should I get mangled, ill, squished etc, I need not bother the NHS beyond the immediate aid required to prevent me popping my clogs. And if more people did this, the NHS wouldn't cost so much, and would arguably be all the more efficient.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Albatross wrote:New Deal? What a pisstake. I remember doing New Deal for Musicians. Didn't feel much like work.
Mr Mystery wrote:New Deal, YTS, all failed, so we can lay that one to rest.
Well let's see how it goes then. Since this isn't a new idea but an old idea repackaged I'm not expecting much. If the state is paying people to work, how exactly is this saving the state money?
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
It's not. It's about challenging mindsets and lifestyles matey.
Sorry if I seem aggressive in this, but can you give me even a single reason why benefits for those seeking work should simply be dished out, rather than earnt?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Ahtman wrote:
The problem is that it assumes that everyone that uses government help is a lazy jerkoff when that is not true. Sure, some people abuse it but does that mean we should ignore everyone that doesn't?
I don't get that. How does getting folks to be productive and earn a portion of thier benefits equate to assuming they are lazy jerk offs? Assuming they are motivated hard workers just down on thier luck, allowing them to do something productive instead of just getting money for nothing would, in my mind, allow them to feel better about getting the aid. It is the actual lazy jerk offs who do NOT want to work that may be offended. Assuming most folks want to feel productive and useful then I would also assume they would embrace the opportunity to do SOMETHING productive.
What am I missing?
Jake
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Mr Mystery wrote:It's not. It's about challenging mindsets and lifestyles matey.
Sorry if I seem aggressive in this, but can you give me even a single reason why benefits for those seeking work should simply be dished out, rather than earnt?
They shouldn't, I have no problem with earned benefits, they should extend them to anyone out of work who is able to work. This plan as it stands won't change mindsets and lifestyles though, don't kid yourself.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Ah, but in applying it, the theory is it will highlight those who are truly bone idle, and additionally, those fraudulently claiming the benefit in the first place.
Hence why I am all for it. Having been in the same position three times, I see no downside to having to go do some work every week.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ahtman wrote:Albatross wrote:We don't have food stamps here. You get cash paid into your bank twice a month.
As I stated, I don't know what the name for it is as I know they aren't actually food stamps but that is still the common parlance when discussing them in the states. I believe that you get an account and a government debit card these days which gets money deposited into it at certain intervals. This card can only be used at certain places. It will work at grocery stores but not an electronics store, for example. I imagine that depositing straight to the bank would keep the common event of people trading their food stamp money for real money.
Yeah, it's just cash here. So they have government charge-only cards in the States? Hmm, not a bad idea. How did that play with hard-core libertarians?
Albatross wrote:An American lambasting Brits for stigmatising welfare recipients?
I didn't think I was lambasting Brits, just ribbing mattyrm a little. If anything nationality has nothing to do with the point at all.
I just meant that we often seem to be on the other side of the argument in threads on this topic. Feels weird.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Mr Mystery wrote:Hence why I am all for it. Having been in the same position three times, I see no downside to having to go do some work every week.
For four whole weeks at thirty hours a week. Stop being so naïve.
15594
Post by: Albatross
I actually think 30 hours a week is a little excessive to be honest, but I guess that's the point. It's supposed to be a disincentive to claim benefits.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
All the more incentive to find a job then, no?
25220
Post by: WarOne
Mr Mystery wrote:All the more incentive to find a job then, no?
Hmm...would this apply to specific people (such as those without great physical handicap)?
15594
Post by: Albatross
Mr Mystery wrote:All the more incentive to find a job then, no?
I thought that was implied, to be honest... 
241
Post by: Ahtman
CptJake wrote:Ahtman wrote:
The problem is that it assumes that everyone that uses government help is a lazy jerkoff when that is not true. Sure, some people abuse it but does that mean we should ignore everyone that doesn't?
I don't get that.
That is becuase you are looking only at what i wrote and not what I was responding to.
CptJake wrote:What am I missing?
Context.
The bit I was responding to was:
But I still fail to see how a unilateral 'get off your arse and do some bloody work for your benefits' is a bad thing?
It implies that anyone getting welfare is lazy, when not all people that are, are. I was responding to that specific quote. It also seems to ignore the fact that, unless they have never had a job in their life, they have paid taxes toward this. Again, I can only go by what I know of my state. Here, part of your taxes goes toward these programs and when you have to draw unemployment what you get is determined by how much you got paid and how long you have worked. If you only worked 6 months you aren't going to get unemployment for very long, as opposed to someone who worked 20 years and lost their job.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
WarOne wrote:Mr Mystery wrote:All the more incentive to find a job then, no?
Hmm...would this apply to specific people (such as those without great physical handicap)?
I would assume not. The 'Benefit' in question is job seekers allowance. Generally speaking, those who have a distinct physical handicap receive Disability Living Allowance instead, as they are either completely unable to work, or extremely limited in jobs they can actually do. Since this is a seperate benefit, and they do not claim Jobseekers Allowance, they would be unaffected. Likewise Incapacity Benefit, which lies somewhere in between the two, meant for those with a curable or temporary disability (like having both your legs mashed up in a car accident) would not be affected by this. It's really not as draconian as some might think.
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
The whole thing is a stupid idea, if theres a job worth doing employ someone to do. I strikes me a no coincidence just when tens of thousands of public sector workers are set to lose there jobs, work that would have fallen under the public sector is being outsourced and filled by slave labour taken from the dole queue. Why not put people in actual employment, the more jobs out there the better.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ahtman wrote:
But I still fail to see how a unilateral 'get off your arse and do some bloody work for your benefits' is a bad thing?
It implies that anyone getting welfare is lazy, when not all people that are, are. I was responding to that specific quote. It also seems to ignore the fact that, unless they have never had a job in their life, they have paid taxes toward this. Again, I can only go by what I know of my state. Here, part of your taxes goes toward these programs and when you have to draw unemployment what you get is determined by how much you got paid and how long you have worked. If you only worked 6 months you aren't going to get unemployment for very long, as opposed to someone who worked 20 years and lost their job.
Again, it doesn't work like that here, and the UK system is what we're talking about. All you have to do to claim dole is be born in the UK, meaning that as soon as you turn 18 you can get money for literally doing nothing, and can continue to do so for quite a while. Automatically Appended Next Post: cpt_fishcakes wrote:The whole thing is a stupid idea, if theres a job worth doing employ someone to do. I strikes me a no coincidence just when tens of thousands of public sector workers are set to lose there jobs, work that would have fallen under the public sector is being outsourced and filled by slave labour taken from the dole queue. Why not put people in actual employment, the more jobs out there the better.
Explain why.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
"the whole thing is a stupid idea, if theres a job worth doing employ someone to do. I strikes me a no coincidence just when tens of thousands of public sector workers are set to lose there jobs, work that would have fallen under the public sector is being outsourced and filled by slave labour taken from the dole queue. Why not put people in actual employment, the more jobs out there the better."
This.^^
It's just too ripe for abuse, and making an under class.
The public sector folks get fired. Then they have to do the same job for unemployment benefits and no perks.
4402
Post by: CptJake
In the US, it is the employer, NOT the employee who pays for unemployment insurance.
Right now, between Federal and State there are multiple tiers of unemployment that result in some folks being on enemployment benefits for over 90 weeks.
Jake
241
Post by: Ahtman
As I stated, I can only go by what happens here. I know it is different but I thought, at the tax rate over there, that some of that was toward welfare programs. While it isn't your specific account, you are still paying in so it isn't as if you are not contributing. It isn't free money (for those that use it properly) but money one, in essence, has set aside in case things go down the can. Now the example that you describe, such as someone never working and getting paid is indeed all sorts of chicanery. In the US if one weren't disabled and never worked, they could not get any money.
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
As some one who just had to throw in the towel with my own business and start looking for a new job I can tell you the job market is dead at the moment, we need more jobs out there. We dont need to be cycling the unemployed through jobs you could be employing people to do permanently, its going to make no difference to unemployment figures. It just means the government or whoever they are outsourcing doles too dont need to employ full time staff to do this work, why would they when theres a ready supply of slaves threatened with poverty if they dont comply.
A drastic overhaul of incapacity benefit is whats needed, thats were your long term dole scroungers are to be found playing the system.
241
Post by: Ahtman
CptJake wrote:Maybe you pay enough taxes to cover unemployment, I know I don't (and I am in a pretty high bracket). (hint: the EMPLOYER is who pays for the unemployment insurance, both Fed and State, not the employee.)
When determining salary do you really think companies aren't taking this into account? That it is some sorts of "oops, we forgot" moment?
CptJake wrote:Anyway, want to address the main point of my post (the context) that you seem to have ignored? Where I state that assuming everyone unemployed is just a down on their luck hard worker that they should be eager to do something productive for their benefits?
Like what? If they are down on their luck and a hard worker than they will find a job. If they cannot, what magical jobs are going to be created that aren't taking the job away from someone else that is already being paid to do that job? In essence it seems like what you are creating are fake government salaries and welfare is not the same as being a government employee.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
I'm just going to mention, again, that we are talking about roughly 5 million people here. Is Britain incredibly messy or something? How about creating long term jobs that guarantee a real income for those that are seeking it... Oh, because it's probably unrealistic to assume that every single person in this group can just stand up and find work.
I simply can't imagine a need for 5 million public sector jobs all focused on "clean-up". More realistically, people volunteer for a few hours a month (maybe a week), in order to receive their benefits. It doesn't stop them from seeking work, it keeps them active, and to be clear, it actually adds up to more effort in the long term.
30 x 4 weeks = 120 over one month.
2-4 x 40 weeks = 80-160 over a year.
As long as it doesn't actually interfere with people's job search, and they are really giving something back to their local communities, this seems like a damn good compromise.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Wrexasaur wrote:
As long as it doesn't actually interfere with people's job search, and they are really giving something back to their local communities, this seems like a damn good compromise.
While I agree with the sentiment, I can't help but wonder what the unintended consequences of this would be.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Let's discuss them.
Perhaps sending so many people to so few places would clog the system, but the inevitability is that volunteer programs in general would have all the help they could possibly need. When that does happen, those that are left without anywhere to go and complete their hours would be kind of screwed, but some safety feature could be built into the system to deal with that.
There are more problems, obviously, I just need to take some time to really think through them.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think a better solution would be putting resources into catching dole scammers, and cutting benefits to people who do not demonstrate that they are looking for work. The system described seems like it would cost more money to score ideological points, and wouldn't fix the problems with the system that leave it open to abuse.
Still, Britains attitude to welfare is a lot more sensible than Irelands, ye can at least take solace in that.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
What the UK needs is for the private sector to create more jobs.
The problem the country has faced over the past 30 years is that the private sector has not created the jobs needed to employ the population.
The government stepped in to fill the gap, through unemployment benefits, increased government jobs, and increased government spending on employing private companies to do government work.
All of that is only a short term solution because it simply imposes a greater burden on the people in 'real' private sector jobs.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
There's an argument to be made that the education system isn't really preparing people for that sort of thing though. I mean, the IT education in the UK isn't the worst ever, but it doesn't really prepare the kids for high tech industry either, and that is where most the potential for growth in a first world country like the UK is (in my opinion, anyhow). I don't see manufacturing (heavy manufacturing) and teritary services as solutions, I reckon a country has to make something to be successful. Same problem as is faced by every first world country these days, though. Perhaps we'll simply have to get used to a drop in quality of life.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Kilkrazy wrote:What the UK needs is for the private sector to create more jobs.
The problem the country has faced over the past 30 years is that the private sector has not created the jobs needed to employ the population.
The government stepped in to fill the gap, through unemployment benefits, increased government jobs, and increased government spending on employing private companies to do government work.
All of that is only a short term solution because it simply imposes a greater burden on the people in 'real' private sector jobs.
Thing is, how does the Private Sector go about creating jobs, when so many are being outsourced? Take Call Centre work. I suppose you could say I work in one (Insurance Claims Processing. I don't really deal over the phone, mostly by E-Mail) and we're lucky the company is dedicated to keeping such things in the UK.
Seriously, what incentives are there for the Private Sector to employ Brits, when there are cheaper sources of labour elsewhere? But you know, this might be a whole other thread!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There are a number of very good British companies but they tend to be small to medium in terms of number employed.
Formula One cars, ARM processors, graphic design and advertising agencies. We've got some decent high tech steel and glass manufacturers too.
Entertainment software, the music industry, pharmaceuticals, film and TV production.
What we have lost is the mass employment industries like old-style mining and steel-making. We will never get them back.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Trouble is, all those industries mentioned require University level education.
I for one, upon leaving school was not ready for that sort of thing, hence my general bumming around over the past 13 years. Though I am now looking into Teaching Qualifications. I quite fancy that, and have done since I was 13.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
That is where the education system is failing, or more accurately, the parents and the education system. Plenty of kids wil not be able to work in the industries you have described due to crappy education. And I mean that literally- they actually won't have the skills needed for an apprentaship straight out of school, so they're likely to end up unemployed and get used to that. Well, that's how it looks to me anyway. The class divides in britain seem a lot steeper than what I'm used to.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Speaking of Apprenticeships, what happened to them? They seem few and far between these days, if they even exist at all.
Perhaps what Blighty needs is a return to the Technical and Grammar School approach. For instance, I'm very much of an intellectual bent (fnarr fnarr) and am pretty useless with my hands, so a Grammar education would suit me best, rather than attempting to teach me something I have no aptitude for. Whereas other people in my year were the opposite. Not bookworms, but picked up creative and mechanical stuff quickly.
Hmmm....time for a new thread...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The kind of industries I mentioned are export earning. The people employed there need domestic industries such as building, transport, farming, catering and soon.
Tourism is an important industry which earns foreign cash as well as internal spending and does not require degree level education.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Da Boss - As a parent you have to put up with the exasperation of your kids not knowing the basics and having it sent home a 'homework'.
My two regularly come home with maths homework that bears no relation to what they are being taught. The same with literacy, they have test type papers with no practical use in or out of class - even in different subjects.
The majority or parents are not to blame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The kind of industries I mentioned are export earning. The people employed there need domestic industries such as building, transport, farming, catering and soon.
Tourism is an important industry which earns foreign cash as well as internal spending and does not require degree level education.
But you can get non specialised degrees in leisure and tourism. In fact many degree course on offer are nothing more than glorified scout merit badges.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Yeah good points all. Heh, I just get nervous looking at my large classes of 15-16 year old kids, some of whom could concievably be working soon, and thinking "what the hell are you going to to do?"
But you are right, there are jobs for them. Probably not enough jobs, but they are there.
15594
Post by: Albatross
There are plenty of jobs here. People in this country just need to get used to the idea that most of them are not going to be millionaires. Certainly not with any degree of ease.
Unrealistic expectations, that's the problem. Everyone thinks that they can 'be somebody' - that sad fact is, they can't. Most people here and elsewhere are 'nobodies'. I think either people find this difficult to handle and just give up, or just live in a dream-world. I've said it before and I'll say it again, our universities are far too oversubscribed, and it is diluting the quality of our workforce.
University education is not for everyone, nor should it be. If a person (such as myself) has outstanding ability, but missed the boat for whatever reason, then pathways should always be open to those who have the talent to make the most of a university education, but lack the means. I firmly believe that.
But there are people at my Uni who absolutely should not be there, they should be plumbers or hairdressers instead. Absolutely nothing wrong with either of those jobs, and I don't want to sound like I'm snobbily denigrating people who do them. It's just that people need to be realistic about what they can achieve. It's my hope that increased tuition fees will dissuade people from going to university who shouldn't be there at all. Maybe THEN we'll see more apprenticeships.
I think they are needed.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Albatross wrote:It's my hope that increased tuition fees will dissuade people from going to university who shouldn't be there at all. Maybe THEN we'll see more apprenticeships.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you were saying, however, I think we can be more selective about who goes to university without putting people into debt for the rest of their lives. Back in my parents day, you got a grant to go to university and only the best people would attend as there were fewer places on fewer courses and they all expected more from the students.
I would prefer to see this route more than just charging the crap out of people wanting to go to university. Get rid of all the silly useless qualifications in subjects that really should not be taught at university and focus on giving the best students the best education. We need world class scientists and engineers, doctors and nurses, software and hardware engineers, etc. We don't need another 40,000 Media Studies graduates, or 90,000 Fine Art History graduates (just pulling these numbers/subjects out of the air).
Get these people into vocational training, or other educational streams that both cater for their desire to learn and also prepare them to work in the field they are learning about.
15594
Post by: Albatross
SilverMK2 wrote:Albatross wrote:It's my hope that increased tuition fees will dissuade people from going to university who shouldn't be there at all. Maybe THEN we'll see more apprenticeships.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you were saying, however, I think we can be more selective about who goes to university without putting people into debt for the rest of their lives. Back in my parents day, you got a grant to go to university and only the best people would attend as there were fewer places on fewer courses and they all expected more from the students.
I would prefer to see this route more than just charging the crap out of people wanting to go to university. Get rid of all the silly useless qualifications in subjects that really should not be taught at university and focus on giving the best students the best education. We need world class scientists and engineers, doctors and nurses, software and hardware engineers, etc. We don't need another 40,000 Media Studies graduates, or 90,000 Fine Art History graduates (just pulling these numbers/subjects out of the air).
Get these people into vocational training, or other educational streams that both cater for their desire to learn and also prepare them to work in the field they are learning about.
The problem is what increasing numbers of people think universities are actually FOR. I think the heavy accent on seeing it as a means to making oneself more employable in a general sense is part of the problem. People do Media Studies degrees (etc.) to give themselves a better chance of getting a slightly better-paid generic office job all too often. They should be places for advancing human understanding in certain subjects. Places of research just as much, if not more than places of qualification.
Also, can you make a good argument for why the rest of society should pay for a private individual's education? Why is that not the responsibility of the individual? Education should be reward in itself, and shouldn't require financial blandishments in order to encourage people towards it. I think we should provide a baseline of education in this country obviously, but I think that responsibility should, largely, stop at 18 years of age. I wouldn't want to see all government further education subsidy scrapped, but I think the people who benefit most from it should pay most, if not all, of the cost.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Albatross wrote:Also, can you make a good argument for why the rest of society should pay for a private individual's education? Why is that not the responsibility of the individual? Education should be reward in itself, and shouldn't require financial blandishments in order to encourage people towards it. I think we should provide a baseline of education in this country obviously, but I think that responsibility should, largely, stop at 18 years of age. I wouldn't want to see all government further education subsidy scrapped, but I think the people who benefit most from it should pay most, if not all, of the cost.
Personally, I see further, quality education as paying for itself in terms of providing top quality graduates in required and important fields. If you are taking the top few percent of school leavers into the University system, your costs are lower and so the investment smaller for, arguably, a bigger gain. As you mention, University degrees should be as much about pushing forward human understanding as it is about learning facts and figures. It would be hoped that the research done at the Universities themselves as part of the teaching process, as well as the nature of the graduates it produces would put us out in front in terms of the sciences, technology, etc.
I'm not advocating a return to the days when we paid people to go to university - some degree of financial input from students should not be overlooked. However, I do not believe that the burden should fall on to students to pay for significant, or even all of their study. A US style system with terms costing £20k+ would be problematic without an extremely long term lead in (ie enough so that someone born this year can have some kind of University fund started to help pay for their possible University education). It is entirely unfair that the government is constantly raising tuition and other fees with little to no warning. Current and future students cannot possibly amass the capital required to study without relying on massive student loans - I paid off almost £2000 of my student loan last year, and already it is back to where it started, and I was on the lower fee structure of 2004 and managed to pay some of my fees up front as well...
The current fee system still places a huge drain on the nation's moneies (both the nation itself and the students) and only claims back money very slowly.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Society as a whole benefits from people being educated.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kilkrazy wrote:Society as a whole benefits from people being educated.
Not as much as the individual, in relative terms. It's not unreasonable for a person to pay for something that benefits them greatly.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
How are children supposed to pay for school, out of their pocket money?
5394
Post by: reds8n
Wrexasaur wrote:I'm just going to mention, again, that we are talking about roughly 5 million people here.
Not quite..
It throws up plenty of questions. Namely:
1] How much will it cost to find the work and ensure that claimants are carrying it out? Bear in mind that there are now 1.5m people on Jobseekers’ Allowance. (A total of 5m are on some form of out-of-work allowance, of which 2.5m are on incapacity benefit). If all are put through this system it would surely cost billions of pounds to administrate.
UPDATE: It will only apply to a small minority of claimants. The scheme may prove to be rather symbolic.
2] Will the entire scheme instead only apply to a handful of the unemployed? To quote the Sunday Times: “Job advisers will be given powers to send benefits claimants on placements“. That sounds discretionary rather than universal.
UPDATE: Indeed. The DWP tells me this scheme only applies to those who aren’t trying hard to find a job. “It gives advisers more discretion when someone is not working at trying to find a job,” says a spokeswoman.
3] What kind of work will they be doing? The theory is that each will have to do four weeks of work at 30 hours a week - that is a block of 120 hours’ labour.
UPDATE: The scheme would be carried out by councils, companies, charities and other voluntary groups. Yet none have signed up to the deal or - it seems - even been approached, according to the DWP. It is still very early days as to how this would work, it seems. Don’t be surprised if the scheme ends up in the hands of existing welfare-to-work providers.
4] Will any of this be economically productive? If so, how will they match people’s skills with the requisite work? (It’s a complicated challenge).
5] Will companies be able to take advantage of the unemployed by getting them to work for almost nothing? Does that leave people open to exploitation?
6] Is the scheme as radical as it sounds or do officials already have similar powers?
UPDATE: The latter. “Advisers do have powers in place at the moment, but they are not very widely used,” says the DWP. I’ve done a bit of research and it turns out that Labour’s “Flexible New Deal” - which was around last year - forced people to do ‘four weeks’ work experience’ .
7] If it is not economically productive, will it all be fruitless Keynesian tasks such as litter-picking, digging holes or rolling boulders up hills and back again?
8] Will the policy only apply to those who have been out of work for a certain length of time? If so how long?
UPDATE: Yes, it is aimed at those who show no interest or application in finding a job. But defining such individuals is down to their advisers - which implies a rather arbitrary judgment. Some officials will doubtless be tougher than others.
9] How often will they have to do the hard labour? Once a year? Every six months? Every five years?
UPDATE: It is still not clear
10] Does it only apply to “layabouts” (the phrase in the Sunday Times) and “no-hopers” (News of the World)? Or will the 1m currently in work - but expected to lose their jobs as a direct or indirect result of the spending review - also face the test?
UPDATE: In theory, no, at least not at first.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/the-questions-for-ids-in-his-plan-to-give-hard-labour-to-workless/
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I have not had a good old fashioned rant for a while so i shall endevour to knock one out now.
Not only do I find the idea of roundly slating this idea ridiculous, I find "socialism" as a whole ridiculous, and anyone who describes themselves as one to be an idealistic fool who has no grounding in the real world. I know there are plenty on here, so i shall of course refrain from using the word idiot.
If you have a system that can be exploited, it will be.
If you reward failure, then people will have an incentive to BE a failure.
Our nation has been destroyed by this garbage.
Stupid and irresonsible enough to have kids at 14? We reward you for it.
Get addicted to drugs? Reward.
Grandmother at 31? Reward.
Spend like a desperate gambler? Reward.
Lazy? Reward.
Be sensible, never go overdrawn, never claim benefits, never spend above your means, never go in the red?
Nothing for you, crack on shoring up the rest of the imbeciles.
Its ridiculous, and enough is enough.
I applaud Mr Camerons efforts, but frankly it isnt going to be enough, we should force them to work in a government workhouse, and the same goes for anybody who ends up "bankrupt" but didnt actually start a business or do something useful.
Oh and bring back hanging and flogging.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Scroungers and benefits cheats will be totally unconcerned by any proposals.
Civil servants couldn't give a toss either.
The only losers will be those who are too honest or those who are too weak to fight their corner.
Being as these are still only proposals I don't expect anything to come of them, it will be a watered down bill at best, threatening 'stronger' action.
This idea, whilst a good one, is unworkable and unreasonable. Unless Jesus can make the sick and infirm walk and people with no conscience suddenly get one. and general apathy ceases, In which case, it wouldn't be needed at all.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
mattyrm wrote:Oh and bring back hanging and flogging.
Public stockades as well. This will spur on the fruit and veg market as people buy things to throw at those locked up.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
SilverMK2 wrote:mattyrm wrote:Oh and bring back hanging and flogging.
Public stockades as well. This will spur on the fruit and veg market as people buy things to throw at those locked up.
Ingenious! You sir will take a place on my cabinet.
Coming soon, Big Brother Inmate Edition!
Kill the murderer of your choice LIVE on air, with the weapon of your choice!
(Calls and Texts cost £1, execution carried out by PM matty last Friday of the month, all profits go to Help for Heroes, cancer research and the Cut Huntleys Knackers off foundation, minus £10.99 for the hammer he broke on Gary Glitters napper last month)
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kilkrazy wrote:How are children supposed to pay for school, out of their pocket money?
Yes, of course. If you go back and read my posts you'll find that's exactly what I said.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Here is another (somewhat related) gem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11347134
As the Chief Librarian said..
"The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal!"
And people are attempting to lambast the Italian authorities for clamping down on them?! We should drive them into the ocean at gunpoint like rats!
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
reds8n wrote:Wrexasaur wrote:I'm just going to mention, again, that we are talking about roughly 5 million people here.
Not quite..
I still wonder how many people we are talking about here. I've spent quite a bit of time looking into the statistics on this issue and the best I could find were opinion polls.
http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/about_the_trust/what_we_do/research/destined_for_the_dole1.aspx
Let's say half a million. Let's say a quarter million. That still a lot of people, but there is the issue of the families involved besides.
It doesn't sound nearly as bad as my first impressions. Not to say it still doesn't sound odd considering the updates you linked.
1] How much will it cost to find the work and ensure that claimants are carrying it out? Bear in mind that there are now 1.5m people on Jobseekers’ Allowance. (A total of 5m are on some form of out-of-work allowance, of which 2.5m are on incapacity benefit). If all are put through this system it would surely cost billions of pounds to administrate.
UPDATE: It will only apply to a small minority of claimants. The scheme may prove to be rather symbolic.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/the-questions-for-ids-in-his-plan-to-give-hard-labour-to-workless/
Symbolism can catch on pretty quickly, but I'm still not sure what this could lead to. I don't want to talk about slippery slopes... but yeah, slippery slopes may be the end result of this.
What I find interesting is how clear many people in the U.K. are about the line on this issue. Maybe I am just used to U.S. politics, but I don't often hear people attacking unemployment insurance as much as I hear people attacking the safety net in general. It seems kind of flipped out here, but I'm not sure how direct the comparisons actually are.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Become a banker -- Reward!
Become an executive -- Reward!
Become a QUANGOCRAT -- Reward!
Become the head of an NHS Trust -- Reward!
Why oh why doesn't everyone who is unemployed simply become a banker or something.
Very soon they would all be multi-millionaires and retire to the Sechelles.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Kilkrazy wrote:Become a banker -- Reward!
Become an executive -- Reward!
Become a QUANGOCRAT -- Reward!
Become the head of an NHS Trust -- Reward!
Er... Worst argument ever, and ive come to expect good ones from you KK.
All of those people are working.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Oh no they're not!
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Hah! Well we can argue about that.. govt jobs I can agree to some extent, but not private sector.
But at the end of the day, they do all get up and go to work, and some bankers do make ridiculous unfair amounts, but they get taxed, so they contribute.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
Mattyrm, your arguments ( I hope they are jokes) border on the insane. Marching people into the sea at gun point?
4062
Post by: TheSecretSquig
Dakka has picked up my biggest pet hate in the world – The Benefits system. And reading the comments, Mattyrm is on my Cabinet!
My blood is boiling just typing this! Other than the reason of “Because you should” or “it’s the right thing to do” No one but no one can give me a reason why I have to go to work to pay for others. People on benefits do absolutely NOTHING for me, yet I’m forced to pay for them. Why is this? (“oh, because you should”). And my view extends to everyone on any type of benefit.
“I was involved in a car accident which left me paralysed” How is this my fault? Yet I’m punished for something that’s nothing to do with me by having to pay for it.
“I can’t walk properly so I need a new car bought for me” – See above comment.
“My husband / Wife / Boyfriend / Girlfriend left me to look after 3 kids” See above comment.
“I can’t find a job” See above comment.
“I’m handicapped” See above comment.
My solution is simple, stop all benefits. And yes, there is proof this system works.
Hong Kong has no benefits system, you work for a living, or you go hungry. Result, less that 3% unemployment of the working population. Families stick together as they look after each other in times of ill health and old age. Taxes are lower. Once you’ve paid tax on your standard working week (lets say it was 37 hours) there is no more tax to pay. So if you work hard, or have a second job, any extra hours you work over and above your standard is not taxed. Rewarded for working hard, no reward for not working.
I was in Vietnam earlier this year. Our tour guide asked me to answer honestly, “I’ve heard that in the UK, you a paid for not working, is this true”. The whole concept of getting free money for whatever reason was completely alien to him. “Everyone works here, or they go hungry” he said.
Let’s say we all decided not to work (for whatever reason), what then? Who pays for it in your liberalised country? The UK is living beyond its means and extreme action is required. Deploy the army at the borders. Illegal entries shot. Your pregnant (again) but can’t afford to pay for the Childs upbringing. Forced Abortion. You’re too lazy to use a condom (which are free in the UK) so you’ve now got 4 kids with 3 different mothers and you don’t pay for any of them. Chemically Castrated.
Here is a true story. My father went to the dentist for a problem. He’s worked all his life, paid taxes, and is 64. “I’m sorry” says the receptionist, “there are no new places for NHS patients, you’ll have to pay for your treatment”. Whilst sat in the waiting room, a single mother with 3 children walks in with a ‘social worker’. Guess what? She and her family are signed on NHS. In querying this, my father is told “They are from an ethic minority and claiming asylum, so we have to treat them”. So a family who’ve contributed NOTHING to society takes preference over someone who’s paid taxes into a country for +40 years and lived in for 63!! How is that fair??
I’m currently posted to the Middle East for 2 years. I hold a residency card for the country I’m living in and technically do not live in the UK. Yet I’m still paying taxes to a country I’m not living in!!!!!
5534
Post by: dogma
TheSecretSquig wrote: People on benefits do absolutely NOTHING for me, yet I’m forced to pay for them.
Ignoring the obvious argument from being on benefits temporarily: of course they do something for you, they are doing something that isn't killing you and taking your wealth.
There are many ways to control people, and financial incentives that prevent them from resorting to pillaging the country-side is one of the better ones. Far cheaper than more police, on average, and far less dangerous in terms of violence.
5470
Post by: sebster
We have Work for the Dole here in Australia. It works alright. It doesn't do as much as some people in this thread have claimed, but it can work as a wake up call for some people that they really do have to get out and get themselves into work.
It certainly isn't, and certainly doesn't, lead to slavery. Getting someone to work one or two days a week, which can be altered if they have a job interview, is no great imposition.
Albatross wrote:The problem is what increasing numbers of people think universities are actually FOR. I think the heavy accent on seeing it as a means to making oneself more employable in a general sense is part of the problem. People do Media Studies degrees (etc.) to give themselves a better chance of getting a slightly better-paid generic office job all too often. They should be places for advancing human understanding in certain subjects. Places of research just as much, if not more than places of qualification.
Yes, thankyou. I hate how often I see people talking about university as a place to crank out engineers and accountants.
Also, can you make a good argument for why the rest of society should pay for a private individual's education?
Because education and learning benefits when it attracts the best and brightest, not just the bright enough people who can afford tuition. Now, that doesn't mean the student cannot be obligated to pay some portion of the cost of their education. The scheme I like is for them to repay a portion once their degree is finished, and they earn over a certain amount.
mattyrm wrote:Not only do I find the idea of roundly slating this idea ridiculous, I find "socialism" as a whole ridiculous, and anyone who describes themselves as one to be an idealistic fool who has no grounding in the real world.
And I think anyone who talks about socialism in the context of any liberal democracy to be none better. The UK is not socialist.
If you have a system that can be exploited, it will be.
Isn't capitalism a system, as well? Doesn't it also get exploited?
Our nation has been destroyed by this garbage.
Not really, no. You're finding new ways to deal with the new problem of a labour market that requires increasingly skilled labour in your own ways, and finding some success and some failure just as the rest of us are. The country is among the wealthiest and most productive in the world, it's hardly 'destroyed'.
I applaud Mr Camerons efforts, but frankly it isnt going to be enough, we should force them to work in a government workhouse, and the same goes for anybody who ends up "bankrupt" but didnt actually start a business or do something useful.
At the end of the day, I just don't understand the bitterness. I get people having different opinions on how much welfare should be, and how much people should be expected to do to receive their welfare... but I just don't get the bitterness and hostility towards people who don't have jobs.
mattyrm wrote:Hah! Well we can argue about that.. govt jobs I can agree to some extent, but not private sector.
Hahahahahahaha!
Worked much in the private sector? Ever been in the offices of a multi-national?
TheSecretSquig wrote:“I was involved in a car accident which left me paralysed” How is this my fault? Yet I’m punished for something that’s nothing to do with me by having to pay for it.
You don't think it is a good thing that person paralysed in a car accident is looked after? I'm not joking here, if you don't understand how almost everyone other than you thinks that's just fine you might be a sociopath.
Seriously, not liking welfare recipients is one thing, what you're arguing above shows an extremely unhealthy lack of empathy.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
TheSecretSquig wrote:. People on benefits do absolutely NOTHING for me, yet I’m forced to pay for them. Why is this? (“oh, because you should”). And my view extends to everyone on any type of benefit.
Apparently you have been paying for me hahahaha how does that feel? Oh, wait before I claimed jobseekers I had been in full time employment since the age of eighteen. Luckily I am employed again and pay NI contributions and tax for a limited amouunt of self employed work that I manage to do, that I could hide from the government but choose not to.
Though, re-reading your post, I cannot decide if you are a narrow minded idiot or just trolling.
5534
Post by: dogma
TheSecretSquig wrote:
Let’s say we all decided not to work (for whatever reason), what then?
Do you honestly think that will ever happen? I mean, it hasn't happened yet, most likely because there are people like you who proudly thrust their bosoms erectly upward because they care about the social standards of those they associate with. Other people are not so inclined, and the issue isn't so much making them more like you, because they clearly don't care about social standards, as it is about making sure they do something that we can tolerate.
And, despite your indignation, losing money due to taxes isn't intolerable.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
TheSecretSquig wrote:
Here is a true story. My father went to the dentist for a problem. He’s worked all his life, paid taxes, and is 64. “I’m sorry” says the receptionist, “there are no new places for NHS patients, you’ll have to pay for your treatment”. Whilst sat in the waiting room, a single mother with 3 children walks in with a ‘social worker’. Guess what? She and her family are signed on NHS. In querying this, my father is told “They are from an ethic minority and claiming asylum, so we have to treat them”. So a family who’ve contributed NOTHING to society takes preference over someone who’s paid taxes into a country for +40 years and lived in for 63!! How is that fair??
Why should I pay for your dad to get dental or medical treatment? he should've earned enough to go private instead of relying on the state.
4062
Post by: TheSecretSquig
Well that post sparked some debate, but still, no one can provide a reason as to why I should work, to have money taken from me, to pay for someone who does NOTHING for me in return. If you’re in the Pub on a Sat. night and someone comes up to you and says “Hey mate, buy me a pint because I can’t work to pay for it myself”, you’d more than likely tell them where to go.
Maybe it was how I was brought up, you work for a living. I really do not understand the concept of giving away my hard earned cash because for something that is completely out of my control, this person doesn’t have any. It’s a bit like me going to one of my neighbours.
“Hey mate, I really want your Aston DB9, I can’t get a job that pays me enough because of (insert reason), so you should give me some of you hard earned cash so I can buy one”
The car accident example above – Isn’t that what insurance is for?
My Father story above– He did pay for his own treatment. The fact remains if you work hard, you get nothing back. If you contribute nothing to society, you get a life paid for.
The culture of the UK has changed in the last 30 years into one where people feel they are owed a living from the state and the working population. I have relatives who I’ve not spoken to for +15 years. They live of benefits and have every mod-con in the house possible, as well as a new car and they go on overseas holidays every year, all paid for by Mr Taxpayer. Take a GW store Manager. Works 37hrs a week, and would not be able to afford the same as someone who leeches off the benefits system.
‘dogma’ says it will never happen that everyone will stop working and say, “pay for me Mr State”. I’m sorry but it’s already happening, there is a whole generation of teenagers who were brought up on a free life on the benefits, having multiple children with multiple fathers who all will be brought up on the free life of benefits.
I for one can’t wait until I’ve saved (a novel concept) enough money to move and work in a country that rewards ‘workers’. The UK is if you try and work your way around the swear filter like this again then your ass is out of here. I really hope Cameroon turns things around. In a country where Soliders are risking their lives on the front line, but are still expected to pay taxes in their home country, whilst others laze about doing, contributing nothing and paying for nothing.
Bring back National Service, Corporal Punishment, get rid of Benefits. Other countries prove this works. Benefits should be like charity, you either choose to pay or you don’t. If you said to the working population, “You can save 5% of your Tax effectively gaining a 5% pay rise, by choosing not to pay into the benefits pot” I guarantee that pot of money will shrink faster than a dole boy being told he has to be out of bed before 11am. Most people would take the 5% rise, and I very much doubt the PC brigade would be able to cope with all the hands in the air wanting their money.
5394
Post by: reds8n
How do you know that every person on benefits does nothing for you ?
And will never do anything for you. Or that their children won't ?
I also don't quite believe the wording of your fathers' story.
EDIT : that sounds harsher than I meant. Apologies.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
TheSecretSquig wrote:Well that post sparked some debate, but still, no one can provide a reason as to why I should work, to have money taken from me, to pay for someone who does NOTHING for me in return. If you’re in the Pub on a Sat. night and someone comes up to you and says “Hey mate, buy me a pint because I can’t work to pay for it myself”, you’d more than likely tell them where to go.
Maybe it was how I was brought up, you work for a living. I really do not understand the concept of giving away my hard earned cash because for something that is completely out of my control, this person doesn’t have any. It’s a bit like me going to one of my neighbours.
“Hey mate, I really want your Aston DB9, I can’t get a job that pays me enough because of (insert reason), so you should give me some of you hard earned cash so I can buy one”
The car accident example above – Isn’t that what insurance is for?
My Father story above– He did pay for his own treatment. The fact remains if you work hard, you get nothing back. If you contribute nothing to society, you get a life paid for.
The culture of the UK has changed in the last 30 years into one where people feel they are owed a living from the state and the working population. I have relatives who I’ve not spoken to for +15 years. They live of benefits and have every mod-con in the house possible, as well as a new car and they go on overseas holidays every year, all paid for by Mr Taxpayer. Take a GW store Manager. Works 37hrs a week, and would not be able to afford the same as someone who leeches off the benefits system.
‘dogma’ says it will never happen that everyone will stop working and say, “pay for me Mr State”. I’m sorry but it’s already happening, there is a whole generation of teenagers who were brought up on a free life on the benefits, having multiple children with multiple fathers who all will be brought up on the free life of benefits.
I for one can’t wait until I’ve saved (a novel concept) enough money to move and work in a country that rewards ‘workers’. The UK is if you try and work your way around the swear filter like this again then your ass is out of here. I really hope Cameroon turns things around. In a country where Soliders are risking their lives on the front line, but are still expected to pay taxes in their home country, whilst others laze about doing, contributing nothing and paying for nothing.
Bring back National Service, Corporal Punishment, get rid of Benefits. Other countries prove this works. Benefits should be like charity, you either choose to pay or you don’t. If you said to the working population, “You can save 5% of your Tax effectively gaining a 5% pay rise, by choosing not to pay into the benefits pot” I guarantee that pot of money will shrink faster than a dole boy being told he has to be out of bed before 11am. Most people would take the 5% rise, and I very much doubt the PC brigade would be able to cope with all the hands in the air wanting their money.
I hate to burst your bubble, comrade, but no state reward their workers, except maybe North Korea, I hear they have a paradise over there...send us a post card...
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kilkrazy wrote:Become a banker -- Reward!
...or... bonuses capped, widely vilified despite much of the UK economy being based on financial services, bank levies...
Become an executive -- Reward!
...or clean out your desk because the company you worked for went bust...
Become a QUANGOCRAT -- Reward!
P45! Reward!
Become the head of an NHS Trust -- Reward!
Radical restructuring of the NHS meaning that powers are being increasingly decentralised! P45! Reward!
sebster wrote:Because education and learning benefits when it attracts the best and brightest, not just the bright enough people who can afford tuition. Now, that doesn't mean the student cannot be obligated to pay some portion of the cost of their education. The scheme I like is for them to repay a portion once their degree is finished, and they earn over a certain amount.
...Which is why I said there should always be pathways for people with ability to... y'know what? Nevermind. Just go back and read it if you want, I can't be bothered.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
As a socialist.
I entirely support the notion of working for benefits if medically able to do so.
As a socialist.
I believe in the individual's obligation to contribute to society for the betterment of all.
That includes people contributing hours of labour to receive payment from the state, just as much as it includes appropirate taxation according to earnings within the nation.
I have worked for Social Services previously and seen first hand the culture of multigenerational benefit claiming as a career choice. I am opposed to this and as a socialist, maintain that the individual must contribute to the state.
For those in this thread lambasting (yet again) socialism, the belief in left wing state, supportive of the working man and woman, DOES NOT endorse social parasitism.
Work hard, earn a crust, enjoy the support of the state should you need it. Contribute, be productive, empower youself and the nation. That is my socialist belief.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Work hard, earn a crust, enjoy the support of the state should you need it. Contribute, be productive, empower youself and the nation. That is my socialist belief.
This is what I think, and I don't consider myself socialist.
15594
Post by: Albatross
MeanGreenStompa wrote:As a socialist.
I entirely support the notion of working for benefits if medically able to do so.
As a socialist.
I believe in the individual's obligation to contribute to society for the betterment of all.
That includes people contributing hours of labour to receive payment from the state, just as much as it includes appropirate taxation according to earnings within the nation.
I have worked for Social Services previously and seen first hand the culture of multigenerational benefit claiming as a career choice. I am opposed to this and as a socialist, maintain that the individual must contribute to the state.
For those in this thread lambasting (yet again) socialism, the belief in left wing state, supportive of the working man and woman, DOES NOT endorse social parasitism.
Work hard, earn a crust, enjoy the support of the state should you need it. Contribute, be productive, empower youself and the nation. That is my socialist belief.
Just a few things:
That includes people contributing hours of labour to receive payment from the state.
Are you saying that all employment should be controlled by the state, here? As in, all businesses being state-run and maintained? Because that's pretty monstrous. That would give the state total power over your life.
If you were talking about making people work for their benefits, disregard. 
For those in this thread lambasting (yet again) socialism, the belief in left wing state, supportive of the working man and woman, DOES NOT endorse social parasitism.
But it DOES enable it, in as much as social security mechanisms are applied in the West. Do you deny this?
This is the problem I, and I believe, many people have with Socialism - when it's applied rigorously it's monstrous and oppressive, when it's applied more loosely or in conjunction with other systems it seems to lead to demographic near-crises, like the one we're currently 'enjoying'.
5534
Post by: dogma
TheSecretSquig wrote:
‘dogma’ says it will never happen that everyone will stop working and say, “pay for me Mr State”. I’m sorry but it’s already happening, there is a whole generation of teenagers who were brought up on a free life on the benefits, having multiple children with multiple fathers who all will be brought up on the free life of benefits.
No, that's hyperbole and you should know it if you don't. Perhaps my use of 'never' was incorrect, it may have been better to say 'highly unlikely', but let's not pretend that the whole of the younger generation is defined by what is essentially the culture of poverty. Doing so is ridiculous for a number of reasons, but the most prominent is that there are plainly children in the UK from well-to-do backgrounds that have never seen a dole pound in their lives.
I mean really, are you trying to claim that no one in the UK lives outside poverty? No one goes to Oxford or Cambridge? Let's not play at nonsense.
TheSecretSquig wrote:
Other countries prove this works.
Which ones? What developed nation doesn't have a social safety net? What developing nation doesn't have a social safety net.
Christ, China has a social safety net and they openly drop dissenters in black prisons.
21967
Post by: Tyyr
While in concept I'm all for putting people on benefits to work I think you'd get more bang for your buck with tougher enforcement of who can and cannot receive the benefits.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Albatross wrote:[Just a few things:
That includes people contributing hours of labour to receive payment from the state.
Are you saying that all employment should be controlled by the state, here? As in, all businesses being state-run and maintained? Because that's pretty monstrous. That would give the state total power over your life.
If you were talking about making people work for their benefits, disregard.
Disregarded. Basically I am not thinking those people should work a 40hr week, since the amount they receive is not proportionate to that and, of course, they must have appropriate time to facilitate actively seeking to return to paid work.
Albatross wrote:
For those in this thread lambasting (yet again) socialism, the belief in left wing state, supportive of the working man and woman, DOES NOT endorse social parasitism.
But it DOES enable it, in as much as social security mechanisms are applied in the West. Do you deny this?
This is the problem I, and I believe, many people have with Socialism - when it's applied rigorously it's monstrous and oppressive, when it's applied more loosely or in conjunction with other systems it seems to lead to demographic near-crises, like the one we're currently 'enjoying'.
Socialism, employed rigourously does not create a monsterous or oppressive society, socialism and free enterprise are perfectly capable of coexisting. Certain services and facilities are better suited to free market and certain to the state. Water for example, should never have been privatised as currently within this country, a state of monopoly exists. Rigour does not equate to totalitarianism, it can be a stong leash but a long one.
What you and several other posters commonly do is to point to New Labour and say 'socialist'. Whilst some in the Labour party do hold themselves up as socialist, others have banished the word as 'dirty'. The 'social parasitism' we see within the Underclass (recreated during the Thatcher years, not having been seen since Victorian times btw) does need to be stopped, as a working class man who believes in contribution to society, you'll get no arguement from me on that.
The arguement you will get is that the Conservatives will not spend time reworking benefits so that they are easy to use for those in actual need, but instead 'blanket quash' certain benefits or cut them. Why? Because the actual state measurements necessary to monitor and effectively means test and requirement test would cost more money in terms of investing and altering.
New Labour does harbour the 'soft' liberal who would allow 4 generations of the same family to do not one day of work because the first generation father was 'smacked' as a child. Such people are usually fairly wealthy themselves and come from comfortable backgrounds. Most working class people hold not one bit of such sympathy and expect everyone else to chip in and pull their weight.
We do need an overhaul of the way in which we delegate the support of the state's finances to it's citizens. That does not mean a shut down of services, that means a revision of them and how we break the culture of the Underclass.
Cuts to services provided by the state do not harm the successful benefit scrounger, they hurt those who are honest and 'don't like to cause a fuss' or 'will just get by'.
Oh... BTW Albatross, I guessed either a giant hammer and sickle or a huge picture of Stalin. Could I ask for a picture of Ché next time? The Hammer and Sickle is getting formulaic.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Albatross wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Become a banker -- Reward!
...or... bonuses capped, widely vilified despite much of the UK economy being based on financial services, bank levies... Take your earnings as dividends paid into offshore accounts, and pay tax on a small percentage of your earnings
Become an executive -- Reward!
...or clean out your desk because the company you worked for went bust... Because you ran it into the ground. And as a ltd company, all the debts die with it. Tommorrow start another company, doing exactly the same thing. and fleece the system all over again
Become a QUANGOCRAT -- Reward!
P45! Reward! Get to sit at functions, giving opinions ,eating free food, with expenses paid. telling other people how to fleece the system/workforce.
Become the head of an NHS Trust -- Reward!
Radical restructuring of the NHS meaning that powers are being increasingly decentralised! P45! Reward! Take big fat pay check plus bonuses, pension plan golden handshake etc.
Dont worry that you took all the money out of the system, It's a political hot potato, so the goverment will clean up the mess
 There fixed that for ya
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Sebster, WHY can you not understand the bitterness?
I cant understand not understanding the bitterness!
Think about it. Nobody really LOVES going to work. I mean, i don't mind my job, after ten years working in places like Iraq, i dont mind going to work, but i would rather be at home painting my mini's.
Now think about someone who hates their job, lots of people do. Really hates it. They hate having to get up at 5am and go work in an office full of people they hate, but they do it anyway.
And next door, they have a guy who plays the system. A guy who hasnt worked for 5 years, and who gets to drink beer 4 or 5 nights a week, but the other guy cant cos he hates going to work with a hangover.
And the guy seems to have as much disposable money, he smokes, he drinks, his car is as nice. But he never has to get up before 11am, and he doesnt have to sit in that damn office for 40 hours a week.
And you dont understand the bitterness?!!
Well i bloody do.
I joined the Royal Marine Commandos because it was a lifelong ambition,and i had a base desire to shoot people, i was young and foolish, but thats neither here nor there.
Many people in the regular army dont do what they do for reasons like mine. Many just do it because they need a job. They want to pay their way, and their pride wont allow them to try the sponging route. I have personally known many people.. really decent people like that.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SergeantLeeJohnsonOf2ndBattalionTheYorkshireRegimentKilledInAfghanistan.htm
I knew this man personally. He was a good guy, from a town just down the road from me. If i am honest, he wasnt that bright a bloke, i could tell by speaking with him, he wasnt very articulate, but like many squaddies from working class background, he had a big heart, and he liked sports and he had some good friends already in the army. So he went and joined as a young fella.
He spent 6 weeks on the ground with my unit teaching us the ground when we first arrived in Kajaki. He was supposed to go on his are and are but he volunteered to push into Musa Qualeh and delay his leave, it was a big operation, and he didnt want to miss the action. He got killed shortly afterwards.
I dont tell you this story to evoke any emotional reponse, indeed, its the internet, i dont expect a story like that would cause one, you dont know any of us, or him, or me.
But im giving you a blindingly obvious and clear pathway to bitterness. if Johno has just thought "screw this" a few years into his career, he would still be here now.
EVERYONE can play the system in the UK, we could all do it. But some of us, good, decent people, have too much pride to allow ourselves to go down that route, so we dont do it. Young, working/lower class people often join the forces just because they cant really think of anything else to do, and they die because of their pride. Better to sit at home and get "free" money surely?
So why dont we all do it? We KNOW they will pay our rent, we know they will give us that 70 quid a week for fags and booze. So why not?
Because we arent all scumbags who are happy to leech of the system.
Which brings me to my next point nicely..
Who earlier was mentioning someone being a sociopath because they didnt care about other people?
I find that an interesting proposition.
I have a conscience. I have something in my mind that makes me feel bad when i see people suffer, and i would never do something bia my own hand that would cause it, theft, rape, (needless) assault
But.. i dont know, if something isnt directly my fault, then i care very little indeed. Does that therefore qualify me as one?
I have faith in my own abilities, and as a result of that, i have a somewhat scornful attitude of those that need help. This is one dimensional i know, but its just the way i feel. I would hate myself if i ever had to sign on for the dole, and i know that i can never be 100% certain it will never ever happen, so perhaps it is a foolish notion, but it is with me nonetheless.
If someone says to me "give me $5 or my baby will starve" i dont give them $5, and i just dont care very much. First of all, i know there are other avenues for assistance, secondly i presume they are not being honest. And I feel a little sad for the baby, but, its not my fault the baby has a slowed parent is it? They shouldnt have had the kid, they should have had a plan, they should have got a job, how is this my doing?
The first time i ever shot somebody i kinda.. struggled with it for for a while as i was young and foolish, and then basically felt that i should not carry a single shred of remorse with me, it went something along the lines of "he deserved it, if he didnt, he wouldnt have picked a rifle up, he would have stayed home and looked after his family and ignored all this war stuff..."
Anyway, im genuinelly curious if i would fit the description of a sociopath as i think of myself as being a decent person... but thats probably another thread.
Back on topic, I am not just bitter, i am filled with hate.
15594
Post by: Albatross
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Albatross wrote:[Just a few things:
That includes people contributing hours of labour to receive payment from the state.
Are you saying that all employment should be controlled by the state, here? As in, all businesses being state-run and maintained? Because that's pretty monstrous. That would give the state total power over your life.
If you were talking about making people work for their benefits, disregard.
Disregarded. Basically I am not thinking those people should work a 40hr week, since the amount they receive is not proportionate to that and, of course, they must have appropriate time to facilitate actively seeking to return to paid work.
Agreed.
Albatross wrote:
For those in this thread lambasting (yet again) socialism, the belief in left wing state, supportive of the working man and woman, DOES NOT endorse social parasitism.
But it DOES enable it, in as much as social security mechanisms are applied in the West. Do you deny this?
This is the problem I, and I believe, many people have with Socialism - when it's applied rigorously it's monstrous and oppressive, when it's applied more loosely or in conjunction with other systems it seems to lead to demographic near-crises, like the one we're currently 'enjoying'.
Socialism, employed rigourously does not create a monsterous or oppressive society, socialism and free enterprise are perfectly capable of coexisting. Certain services and facilities are better suited to free market and certain to the state. Water for example, should never have been privatised as currently within this country, a state of monopoly exists. Rigour does not equate to totalitarianism, it can be a stong leash but a long one.
I'm using the word 'rigour' in terms of strictness of application - obeying the central tenets to the letter. If socialist principles were adhered to in extremis, the result would be, and has been, extreme oppression.
It's also worth pointing out that whilst you say there exists a state of monopoly regarding water suppliers, under your proposed system the state would have a monopoly on the water supply - what's the difference? The government would charge less? This is another problem - socialism assumes too much about human decency. Humans will always seek to gain advantage over each other. We're just hard-wired that way. A system whereby everyone is assumed to pull together and do their bit for the common good is doomed to fail for one very important reason: Some people don't care about any other 'good' than their own. And why not? I'd sooner not see ambition abolished. It drives innovation, and personal gain drives ambition.
What you and several other posters commonly do is to point to New Labour and say 'socialist'.
No I don't. I am on record here (somewhere) as stating that New Labour is a Thatcherite party in terms of economics. Whilst that may be slight hyperbole, I feel I always make the distinction between 'old' and 'new' Labour. For example, we are heading back to 'old' Labour, and Milliband is most certainly a socialist.
Whilst some in the Labour party do hold themselves up as socialist, others have banished the word as 'dirty'. The 'social parasitism' we see within the Underclass (recreated during the Thatcher years, not having been seen since Victorian times btw) does need to be stopped, as a working class man who believes in contribution to society, you'll get no arguement from me on that.
No, but I will get some deflection, I see. You just can't blame Thatcher for the current 'underclass' situation. Sorry. Labour had 13 years. Equality got worse. Economy got worse. Thatcher's a basket case now. No, the people you should be pointing the finger at are the ones you voted for (er, that is, assuming you didn't vote SWP )
We do need an overhaul of the way in which we delegate the support of the state's finances to it's citizens. That does not mean a shut down of services, that means a revision of them and how we break the culture of the Underclass.
Cuts to services provided by the state do not harm the successful benefit scrounger, they hurt those who are honest and 'don't like to cause a fuss' or 'will just get by'.
I'm (almost) inclined to agree, but there's no money left, as the 'funny' note left said. We can't afford to go on like we are. Of course, you can be sure that the Tories would have made cuts - and I would have supported them. But to this level? It's political suicide unless the country comes out the other side in much better shape, and I think for once the Tories have actually shown that they care by effectively falling on their political swords for the good of the nation. Make no mistake, if this program of cuts doesn't work, then we in the Blue camp are fethed for the forseeable future and Cameron knows it. If he had any choice at all in the matter, he would not be doing it.
Oh... BTW Albatross, I guessed either a giant hammer and sickle or a huge picture of Stalin. Could I ask for a picture of Ché next time? The Hammer and Sickle is getting formulaic.
I believe it was Chavez last time.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
One death in afganiststan, is one death too many.
You said yourself; a lot of people joined the forces because of no jobs.
In a socialist society, he would have had the opportunity to find work.
We have had over thirty years of bad government.
Thatcher/Major/Blair/ Brown all looked after themselves
Nobody took the long view about policies.
Political dogma should never replace common sense.
This work for dole is nothing new. It’s already happening, and was under Labour.
A young lad near me was working for dole plus 15 pounds a week (traveling money).
Because he was desperate for a job. 30 hours a week to make a good impression.
At the end of his four weeks, goodbye sucker and hello next hopeful.
The company could have set proper staff on, but why bother when people can be forced to work for free.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Albatross wrote:
I'm using the word 'rigour' in terms of strictness of application - obeying the central tenets to the letter. If socialist principles were adhered to in extremis, the result would be, and has been, extreme oppression.
Most if not all political slants and leanings can lead to extreme oppression, if taken in extremis, that's not a fair analogy of socialism, you're talking about extremism and hardline communism.
Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that whilst you say there exists a state of monopoly regarding water suppliers, under your proposed system the state would have a monopoly on the water supply - what's the difference? The government would charge less? This is another problem - socialism assumes too much about human decency. Humans will always seek to gain advantage over each other. We're just hard-wired that way. A system whereby everyone is assumed to pull together and do their bit for the common good is doomed to fail for one very important reason: Some people don't care about any other 'good' than their own. And why not? I'd sooner not see ambition abolished. It drives innovation, and personal gain drives ambition.
Because the population maintains their power via the veto, because their taxation funds the water and they directly control who does what in the 'company' as they can hire and fire the 'management'. It's certainly a good deal more empowering than the water from the sky being controlled by private interest corporations with profit margins.
Albatross wrote:
I am on record here (somewhere) as stating that New Labour is a Thatcherite party in terms of economics. Whilst that may be slight hyperbole, I feel I always make the distinction between 'old' and 'new' Labour.
vs
Albatross wrote:You just can't blame Thatcher for the current 'underclass' situation. Sorry. Labour had 13 years. Equality got worse. Economy got worse. Thatcher's a basket case now. No, the people you should be pointing the finger at are the ones you voted for.
The Thatcherite government created the underclass, the Thatcherite leaning Blairites did little to stop the trend, other than the absolutely dire 'Sure Start' initiative, which was a colossal slap in the face of the working class and a facilitation of benefit culture, not a remedy.
Blair courted and embraced old Thatcher philosophy, he also lost me as a voter after he and his merry troupe came to power.
Albatross wrote:
I'm (almost) inclined to agree, but there's no money left, as the 'funny' note left said. We can't afford to go on like we are.
You're quite right, we can't afford to do piss all, but lets be clear this country is in the economic mire because of multibillion banks and finance companies gambling and then the government having to bail them out, not because of some grotty bugger doing some painting and decorating on the sly. The financial situation we currently face could certainly have occured under the Tories just as easily, or do you not remember Black Wednesday? Don't mistakenly place blame for the trouble we're in on the underclass, the benefit culture needs sorting but it was not responsible for the pound getting flushed down the plug hole, bankers were.
Oh... BTW Albatross, I guessed either a giant hammer and sickle or a huge picture of Stalin. Could I ask for a picture of Ché next time? The Hammer and Sickle is getting formulaic.
I believe it was Chavez last time.
Ok then, have some of this...
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I absolutely bloody hate Steve Bell...
20880
Post by: loki old fart
mattyrm wrote:Sebster, WHY can you not understand the bitterness?
I cant understand not understanding the bitterness!
@ Mattyrn
If it makes you feel better let me tell you a true story.
My dad came to visit me, he was upset.
So I asked what was wrong. The bl**dy tax office has sent me a letter. They say I've under paid my income tax!!!.
And are demanding one hundred and seventy five thousand pounds + on top of what I've already payed.
Well I really felt sorry for him.
THIS IS ALL TRUE and yes I did see the letter
15594
Post by: Albatross
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Albatross wrote:
I'm using the word 'rigour' in terms of strictness of application - obeying the central tenets to the letter. If socialist principles were adhered to in extremis, the result would be, and has been, extreme oppression.
Most if not all political slants and leanings can lead to extreme oppression, if taken in extremis, that's not a fair analogy of socialism, you're talking about extremism and hardline communism.
I think we're just quibbling on a semantic point here. My original point was that socialism doesn't seem to really ever work in practice as it does in theory, whether in it's 'pure' end-state form (which leads to communism and associated fun times, as you pointed out) or as part of a mixed system. Surely that means it's not viable?
Cue: 'Ah, but no-one's ever done it properly'-type arguments.
Albatross wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that whilst you say there exists a state of monopoly regarding water suppliers, under your proposed system the state would have a monopoly on the water supply - what's the difference? The government would charge less? This is another problem - socialism assumes too much about human decency. Humans will always seek to gain advantage over each other. We're just hard-wired that way. A system whereby everyone is assumed to pull together and do their bit for the common good is doomed to fail for one very important reason: Some people don't care about any other 'good' than their own. And why not? I'd sooner not see ambition abolished. It drives innovation, and personal gain drives ambition.
Because the population maintains their power via the veto, because their taxation funds the water and they directly control who does what in the 'company' as they can hire and fire the 'management'. It's certainly a good deal more empowering than the water from the sky being controlled by private interest corporations with profit margins.
Again, a problem; what you're talking about is pseudo-empowerment. If the water provider is state-controlled, and the state is a socialist state, then it will inevitably be a one-party state. That is unless you would advocate having a Democratic Socialist Party and a Social Democrat party, which is just... an Orwellian nightmare.
This is a problem because the management would be state-appointed - you could vote to have the management removed, but it would be replaced with another state-appointed management. In a one-party system (or equivalent socialist hegemony) this would add up to zero choice and zero empowerment. At the moment we DO actually have some (albeit limited) choices regarding our utilities supply. An private oligopoly is preferable to a state monopoly in my opinion.
The Thatcherite government created the underclass
So there were no poor people post-Victorian era? I ask this because you cited it.
Albatross wrote:
I'm (almost) inclined to agree, but there's no money left, as the 'funny' note left said. We can't afford to go on like we are.
You're quite right, we can't afford to do piss all, but lets be clear this country is in the economic mire because of multibillion banks and finance companies gambling and then the government having to bail them out, not because of some grotty bugger doing some painting and decorating on the sly. The financial situation we currently face could certainly have occured under the Tories just as easily, or do you not remember Black Wednesday? Don't mistakenly place blame for the trouble we're in on the underclass, the benefit culture needs sorting but it was not responsible for the pound getting flushed down the plug hole, bankers were.
I didn't blame 'The Underclass'. I said... actually, I said it all a few pages ago:
Our banks didn't start it, but they certainly didn't help. It's worth noting that the UK gov't didn't actually re-capitalise all the problem banks, they just agreed to underwrite potential losses incurred up to a certain limit. The welfare bill on the other hand, is real money, paid out every year. Our sovereign debts made our recession waaaay worse than it should have been.
What we have is a big liability, that much is clear. But to say 'it was the bankers' is just an easy cop out. It was a perfect storm of factors which caused the largest recession since... feth knows. Cheap credit from the banks, irresponsible borrowing by western consumers hooked on luxury goods, a culture in which every idiot thinks he can be an overseas property developer (seriously, I remember a time when it was only millionaires who could afford second homes abroad), and massive public spending on our part screwed us.
Oh... BTW Albatross, I guessed either a giant hammer and sickle or a huge picture of Stalin. Could I ask for a picture of Ché next time? The Hammer and Sickle is getting formulaic.
I believe it was Chavez last time.
Ok then, have some of this...
I like it! Sums me up perfectly.
Right back atcha:
Before you say 'he's not a socialist', I'm pretty sure he's not a Scotsman, either....
241
Post by: Ahtman
What do we do with all the people who buy into the premise that if you follow the rules and work hard than you shouldn't have to help anyone or pay into a system to help protect others, and then they end up getting really screwed by the system that taught them that they shouldn't have to help others. Like all those nice middle-class families that worked a Enron and lost everything.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ahtman wrote:What do we do with all the people who buy into the premise that if you follow the rules and work hard than you shouldn't have to help anyone or pay into a system to help protect others, and then they end up getting really screwed by the system that taught them that they shouldn't have to help others. Like all those nice middle-class families that worked a Enron and lost everything.
Enron's not really a British problem. So...
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Albatross wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:Albatross wrote:
I'm using the word 'rigour' in terms of strictness of application - obeying the central tenets to the letter. If socialist principles were adhered to in extremis, the result would be, and has been, extreme oppression.
Most if not all political slants and leanings can lead to extreme oppression, if taken in extremis, that's not a fair analogy of socialism, you're talking about extremism and hardline communism.
I think we're just quibbling on a semantic point here. My original point was that socialism doesn't seem to really ever work in practice as it does in theory, whether in it's 'pure' end-state form (which leads to communism and associated fun times, as you pointed out) or as part of a mixed system. Surely that means it's not viable?
Hmm, you stated and have continued to state that socialism hasn't worked, it can be easily said to have worked as effectively as capitalism and I'm sure you'd agree an extreme version of capitalist state would work no better. Either that or you want Wayland Yutani for a sunbeam...
How has it not worked in a mixed democratic system? We have an excellent health service, we support those out of work, we support our elderly with a pension, we provide schooling for all children. All these things would be better if provided with more funds, but that simply requires further taxation and a ceasation of the poor management that's been rife in all these areas over the last 30 years.
Albatross wrote:
Because the population maintains their power via the veto, because their taxation funds the water and they directly control who does what in the 'company' as they can hire and fire the 'management'. It's certainly a good deal more empowering than the water from the sky being controlled by private interest corporations with profit margins.
Again, a problem; what you're talking about is pseudo-empowerment. If the water provider is state-controlled, and the state is a socialist state, then it will inevitably be a one-party state. That is unless you would advocate having a Democratic Socialist Party and a Social Democrat party, which is just... an Orwellian nightmare.
Private enterprise as it currently exists for water corporations, has no competition, this is a monopoly, driven only by the need to generate profit and without the need to fight off rivals. It is not under the threat of veto and public opinion as a government controlled water board would be. This is inherantly detrimental to the consumer. Further, what right did the conservative government have to sell the country's water to private industry? What then happens when we are told we must pay for pollution free air? Just what is it goverments are supposed to do if they have sold off all the nation's assets to private firms?
Albatross wrote:
This is a problem because the management would be state-appointed - you could vote to have the management removed, but it would be replaced with another state-appointed management. In a one-party system (or equivalent socialist hegemony) this would add up to zero choice and zero empowerment. At the moment we DO actually have some (albeit limited) choices regarding our utilities supply. An private oligopoly is preferable to a state monopoly in my opinion.
I have no choice regarding my water supply, where are you living and how do you switch company if you are not pleased with the rates the company decides to charge you?
How did our taxation drop when the water boards were privatised? They didn't as far as I can tell, Tories sold our water, the water that falls on the UK, to private interests and we had no tax rebate, no lowering of income taxes, no cheque in the post for our trouble and denial of our country's resource.
Why is a private company, driven by profit and appeasing shareholders, preferable to the resource of the nation remaining the province of the nation? The empowerment comes from the national resource belonging to the people. As it should.
Albatross wrote:
The Thatcherite government created the underclass
So there were no poor people post-Victorian era? I ask this because you cited it.
Apologies if you didn't mean it to, but this sounds glib, of course there were, what there was not were the sheer numbers of people in that category, hence 'Class'. I can tell you there wasn't the number of homeless on the streets when I was very young, they appeared in numbers within my lifetime, there certainly was not the level of unemployed until the height of Thatcher's dominion.
Albatross wrote:
I didn't blame 'The Underclass'. I said... actually, I said it all a few pages ago:
Our banks didn't start it, but they certainly didn't help. It's worth noting that the UK gov't didn't actually re-capitalise all the problem banks, they just agreed to underwrite potential losses incurred up to a certain limit. The welfare bill on the other hand, is real money, paid out every year. Our sovereign debts made our recession waaaay worse than it should have been.
What we have is a big liability, that much is clear. But to say 'it was the bankers' is just an easy cop out. It was a perfect storm of factors which caused the largest recession since... feth knows. Cheap credit from the banks, irresponsible borrowing by western consumers hooked on luxury goods, a culture in which every idiot thinks he can be an overseas property developer (seriously, I remember a time when it was only millionaires who could afford second homes abroad), and massive public spending on our part screwed us.
Irresponsible borrowing? Do you ever stop to look at the gak they push through your letterbox every morning, assuring you how much more you can borrow? How great your credit is?
It's irresponsible lending that's to blame in many cases, it's banks and companies not mentioning the recalculating interest that occurs every day of the loan's life. I have sat in a bank and had some silver tongued wench try to get me to take out a second bank loan and absorb the full repayment of my previous loan into it, to facilitate 'one easy repayment instead of two...', one repayment I'd be finished paying in 2070... It pains me to think of someone less financially aware wandering in there prior to Christmas and getting themselves stuck in such a deal.
Albatross wrote:
I like it! Sums me up perfectly.
Right back atcha:
Before you say 'he's not a socialist', I'm pretty sure he's not a Scotsman, either....
Ah, well here's something for your vinegar strokes
11029
Post by: Ketara
Irresponsible borrowing? Do you ever stop to look at the gak they push through your letterbox every morning, assuring you how much more you can borrow? How great your credit is?
It's irresponsible lending that's to blame
Can I just state as a neutral here MGS, that a suitable analogy for that would be Albatross blaming smokers for ruining their health, and you turning around around and saying, 'It's the cigarette companies fault! They make them available on every street corner, etc'. You might want to word that a bit better.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Indeed, i agree with Ketara, If your that much of a fething idiot that you take every loan you get offered, then you deserve your house reposessing.
Typical of todays culture to say that.
Its like the fatties who sue Macdonalds.
"Its not my fault, they keep selling me them!"
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Mattrym...big part of the problem is that budgetting and basic financials aren't covered in school, so you get quite a few people leaving school, being offered Credit cards and thinking 'cool! Free money'.
Cycle starts there. Having been in this boat, I know it's my own fault for taking it, yet my education was lacking in that I was unable to make an objective decision. Little bit here would go a long, long way.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Albatross wrote:Ahtman wrote:What do we do with all the people who buy into the premise that if you follow the rules and work hard than you shouldn't have to help anyone or pay into a system to help protect others, and then they end up getting really screwed by the system that taught them that they shouldn't have to help others. Like all those nice middle-class families that worked a Enron and lost everything.
Enron's not really a British problem. So...
If you want to only discuss British problems with British people there are other forums for that. In as such this thread may be specifically about a possible British program it is also broadly about governmental services and push/pull of capitalism and socialism. Those are not exclusive to Britain and can be related to other areas. I can rewrite it so it says 'British people' but I thought, apparently wrongly, that you would understand the issue presented, not just see the word 'Enron' and stop.
5534
Post by: dogma
mattyrm wrote:
EVERYONE can play the system in the UK, we could all do it. But some of us, good, decent people, have too much pride to allow ourselves to go down that route, so we dont do it. Young, working/lower class people often join the forces just because they cant really think of anything else to do, and they die because of their pride. Better to sit at home and get "free" money surely?
Evidently not. If it were, then said young men would have done exactly that. Don't forget that things like pride are central to determining whether or not a given choice is good or bad.
What Sebster doesn't understand, and really neither do I, is why its so upsetting that other people lack the pride, moral fiber, or whatever it is that spurs a particular person to take care of themselves (or at least willfully ignore the fact that they aren't taking care of themselves entirely). I mean, personally, I find all the rancor pretty amusing because I can't really see how its useful. If its really a hatred of one's existence that is causing a given person to act out against welfare recipients, then surely it makes more sense to devote oneself to correcting the problems in one's own life, as opposed to focusing on the choices of others.
Granted, the choices of others impact everyone's personal lives, that's why we have government and social welfare programs, but it isn't as if spewing vitriol regarding the evil welfare queens is a particularly productive activity if what is really sought after is an improvement of one's own circumstances.
mattyrm wrote:
So why dont we all do it? We KNOW they will pay our rent, we know they will give us that 70 quid a week for fags and booze. So why not?
Because we arent all scumbags who are happy to leech of the system.
Well, that, and what you're describing sounds like a pretty crappy life, at least to me.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Ketara wrote:Irresponsible borrowing? Do you ever stop to look at the gak they push through your letterbox every morning, assuring you how much more you can borrow? How great your credit is?
It's irresponsible lending that's to blame
Can I just state as a neutral here MGS, that a suitable analogy for that would be Albatross blaming smokers for ruining their health, and you turning around around and saying, 'It's the cigarette companies fault! They make them available on every street corner, etc'. You might want to word that a bit better.
I was stating that the mortgage shortfall and the subsequent economic clusterfeth that overwhelmed the US and UK was not the fault of the people offered mortgages but the fault of the banks who 'empowered' these poor daft bastards to do so, as it was being alluded to that the 'dark times' we are in was in some way the result of 'benefit scroungers'
Our culture places a degree of trust (deserved or not) in banks, they are the custodians of your cash. The idea they are trying to 'trap' you in debt with small print and APR doesn't occur to many of the country's population. These aren't dodgy ads in the newspaper for fast loans, these are national banks, highstreet names.
mattyrm wrote:Indeed, i agree with Ketara, If your that much of a fething idiot that you take every loan you get offered, then you deserve your house reposessing.
Typical of todays culture to say that.
Its like the fatties who sue Macdonalds.
"Its not my fault, they keep selling me them!"
Your funny. Soundbite more. Most people getting their houses repossessed only fail to meet one loan, their mortgage, the one they were miss-sold buy some gel haired tool working on a commission basis who offered to 'do them a favour' and get them the money for the house they wanted.
Also, the personal debt in this country stands at a higher figure than the GDP. That's a whole lot of fething idiots...
5470
Post by: sebster
TheSecretSquig wrote:Well that post sparked some debate
No, not debate, just derision.
but still, no one can provide a reason as to why I should work, to have money taken from me, to pay for someone who does NOTHING for me in return.
Because the idea that the money you receive in your gross pay is somehow 'your money' divorced from the system that produced it, while the tax taken is suddenly and for the first time the involvement of government, is a fantasy.
The system that created the companies and technology and legal structures that allowed you to become such a productive person, is the same system that decided to take some of your money to give it people as welfare.
The car accident example above – Isn’t that what insurance is for?
And if the person who hit them didn't have insurance? If the victim was a pedestrian? If the accident occured in the playground and didn't involve cars at all?
‘dogma’ says it will never happen that everyone will stop working and say, “pay for me Mr State”.
If life on welfare is so leisurely and fun, why aren't you doing it? Why is that life only taken up by a rare few? Either people are inclined to work regardless of how easy life is on welfare, or life isn't that great on welfare. You're claiming both those things aren't true, despite the very obvious fact that almost all of us choose to chase employment.
As a result, your worldview is in direct conflict with reality, and that's a fairly poor place to start a debate from. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross wrote:...Which is why I said there should always be pathways for people with ability to... y'know what? Nevermind. Just go back and read it if you want, I can't be bothered.
But it wouldn't be the same thing, and there's no point pretending it would be.
You would have a user pays system where the wealthy can get their kids educated, plus an in-take of the most exceptional. Which is better than a straight up user pays system, but still exludes those who are talented but not talented enough to gain a scholarship, while including those who aren't as capable but have rich parents.
How is that superior to the suggestion I gave; that people can learn for free if they get the right scores, but will be expected to pay some or most of it back once they're earning scads of cash thanks to their degree? Automatically Appended Next Post: mattyrm wrote:Sebster, WHY can you not understand the bitterness?
I cant understand not understanding the bitterness!
Think about it. Nobody really LOVES going to work. I mean, i don't mind my job, after ten years working in places like Iraq, i dont mind going to work, but i would rather be at home painting my mini's.
Yeah, but I’d be hating my job about as much, whether 10% of my pay went to social security or not.
And in the meantime, where is the bitterness towards the top end of town. You have a guy like Bernie Madoff, who by himself cost the US economy $65 billion. How many people have to sponge a weekly welfare payment to cost more than that?
There’s just more wealth sapping at the top than there is at the bottom.
But im giving you a blindingly obvious and clear pathway to bitterness. if Johno has just thought "screw this" a few years into his career, he would still be here now.
Soldiers get a raw deal. Particularly UK soldiers. Sucks, but it sucked before there was a welfare system, and it’ll suck once you guys have torn the welfare system down.
Who earlier was mentioning someone being a sociopath because they didnt care about other people?
I find that an interesting proposition.
He said he didn’t understand caring for a person who’d been paralysed in a car accident. I said I could understand the resentment towards an able bodied person taking welfare, but towards a paralysed person it was showing an incredible lack of empathy.
I have faith in my own abilities, and as a result of that, i have a somewhat scornful attitude of those that need help. This is one dimensional i know, but its just the way i feel. I would hate myself if i ever had to sign on for the dole, and i know that i can never be 100% certain it will never ever happen, so perhaps it is a foolish notion, but it is with me nonetheless.
Yeah, I’ve never taken a dole payment either, and I don’t think I ever will (maybe that’s arrogant of me, but I’m pretty well qualified…) My support for social security isn’t because I think I’ll ever get it. In fact, there’s a growing trend in Australia towards giving welfare payments to people who are gainfully employed – the government will give you $7,000 for having a baby just straight up. They’ll give you money if you’ve got some kids, even when you’re earning $100k between yourself and your partner. Those are payments I expect to be receiving at some point down the line, but I’d happily support any government that looked to get rid of them. I really don’t support welfare out of personal interest.
I support the welfare system because even though some people receive money that shouldn’t, and even though some people choose to stay on welfare when they could get a job, the alternative is for people who genuinely can’t find work to have no means of support. It would mean that even though some women might have a child because they know they can get single mother’s allowance, it means that children born to destitute parents would be impoverished through no fault of their own.
I support it because the alternative is worse.
The first time i ever shot somebody i kinda.. struggled with it for for a while as i was young and foolish, and then basically felt that i should not carry a single shred of remorse with me, it went something along the lines of "he deserved it, if he didnt, he wouldnt have picked a rifle up, he would have stayed home and looked after his family and ignored all this war stuff..."
That makes us different people, as I really doubt I could do that. It doesn’t make either of us wrong. It certainly doesn’t make you a sociopath.
Anyway, im genuinelly curious if i would fit the description of a sociopath as i think of myself as being a decent person... but thats probably another thread.
Nah. That’s the kind of thing that better describes someone who can’t understand the state giving money to a paralysed person. Automatically Appended Next Post: loki old fart wrote:One death in afganiststan, is one death too many.
You said yourself; a lot of people joined the forces because of no jobs.
In a socialist society, he would have had the opportunity to find work.
No socialist country ever drove the lower classes into armed service? No-one ever died a pointless death in the military escapades of a socialist country?
A young lad near me was working for dole plus 15 pounds a week (traveling money).
Because he was desperate for a job. 30 hours a week to make a good impression.
At the end of his four weeks, goodbye sucker and hello next hopeful.
The company could have set proper staff on, but why bother when people can be forced to work for free.
Yeah, attaching work for the dole to private companies is asking for trouble. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote:Can I just state as a neutral here MGS, that a suitable analogy for that would be Albatross blaming smokers for ruining their health, and you turning around around and saying, 'It's the cigarette companies fault! They make them available on every street corner, etc'. You might want to word that a bit better.
Your analogy is built on the assumption that one person is to blame for a situation, and one person only. It is possible to consider the people who borrow more than they can afford to blame to some extent, and the banks to blame as well.
And given one party is a guy who failed highschool maths, and the other is a large corporation who is supposed to be vetting loans as their core business practice, I personally think the blame falls more on the latter.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Your analogy is built on the assumption that one person is to blame for a situation, and one person only.
Nope. Pretty sure I never said that. Is it not possible in my analogy for the cigarette companies to be to blame as well, since they are enabling it? You're jumping to conclusions for the sake of arguing sebster, something you don't usually do.
You may think majority of the balme falls on one as opposed to the other, but as someone who has yet to state an opinion, I believe that has absolutely no relevance to my analogy whatsoever.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ketara wrote:Nope. Pretty sure I never said that. Is it not possible in my analogy for the cigarette companies to be to blame as well, since they are enabling it?
I don't think cigarette companies are responsible for the negative consequences of their products in the same that banks are responsible for defaulted loans. The role of each company in their respective sectors is very different.
You may think majority of the balme falls on one as opposed to the other, but as someone who has yet to state an opinion, I believe that has absolutely no relevance to my analogy whatsoever.
I read your post as strongly implying an opinion, sorry if I misread.
15594
Post by: Albatross
@Ahtman - Chill out, mate. I was so obviously yanking your chain there, I didn't think I needed to use an orkmoticon.... If you'll look back earlier in the thread, I said that there should be a baseline of care for the most vulnerable. Also, bear in mind, you can't qualify for benefits if you have savings in the bank. As most comfortable, middle-class people likely would, they wouldn't get unemployement benefits even under the current system.
..
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Hmm, you stated and have continued to state that socialism hasn't worked, it can be easily said to have worked as effectively as capitalism and I'm sure you'd agree an extreme version of capitalist state would work no better. Either that or you want Wayland Yutani for a sunbeam...
Actually, what I said was that it hasn't worked in practice how it was supposed to in theory - everyone pulling together for the good of the nation. To me, it seems that it has either resulted in extreme coercion, or has allowed for a framework in which people can take advantage of the hard work of others whilst contributing absolutely nothing to society.
As a side note, I am glad that this discussion hasn't deteriorated into mud-slinging, as is so often the case between me and you when on this topic. I will freely admit that I play a large part in that, and I hold my hands up to it. You see, I actually share a lot of your sentiment, even if I (sometimes violently) disagree with how it should be applied. For what it's worth I think you're a decent bloke. I too believe that everyone should do their bit for the good of the nation, as that makes the nation stronger and more productive. Where I differ, it would seem, is that I believe that it should always be a free choice - engage with the community, be a productive citizen, and reap the benefits. We should have a country in which, if you work hard, you can achieve anything that is within your ability - we should give people the basic tools to help them: primary and secondary education, healthcare and protection. But I don't think our responsibility to others as citizens extends to giving them a living and putting food on their table if they can't be bothered to do it themselves.
I know you like to paint me as a heartless Tory bastard ( ), but I really am not, I assure you. I have known struggle. I'm not like the many conservatives you will see on this site who seem to delight in the misfortune of those who are vulnerable - the 'sucks to be you HURR' attitude is not part of my make-up. We SHOULD care for those who can't care for themselves.
But those who refuse to? Yes, it SHOULD suck to be them.
How has it not worked in a mixed democratic system? We have an excellent health service, we support those out of work, we support our elderly with a pension, we provide schooling for all children. All these things would be better if provided with more funds, but that simply requires further taxation and a ceasation of the poor management that's been rife in all these areas over the last 30 years.
I think you have a little bit of a rose-tinted view of the public services in this country, but I suppose that's to be expected. And I hardly think that spending MORE public money is the answer to our problems. As I pointed out earlier, we already spend horrendous amounts of public money. You know what I would love? I would love to give every household in the UK a brand-new laptop and free broadband connection. But we can't afford it.
Oh, crap! Late for uni - I'll pick this up later...
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Albatross wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Hmm, you stated and have continued to state that socialism hasn't worked, it can be easily said to have worked as effectively as capitalism and I'm sure you'd agree an extreme version of capitalist state would work no better. Either that or you want Wayland Yutani for a sunbeam...
Actually, what I said was that it hasn't worked in practice how it was supposed to in theory - everyone pulling together for the good of the nation. To me, it seems that it has either resulted in extreme coercion, or has allowed for a framework in which people can take advantage of the hard work of others whilst contributing absolutely nothing to society.
Well, conceded, the vaulting principals of ideology often don't work in practice, Socialism in it's purest form, with everyone working together and sharing and supporting would be amazing, it does not function like that in reality because the human animal is instinctly greedy and competative. However we are also capable of great feats of cooperation towards better outcomes.
You must also concede that the vaulted ideal of captalist free market and 'anyone can achieve greatness if they work at it' are also flawed pipedreams, we instead have 'old boys networks', closed clubs of the rich and elitism that whilst not as overt, remains as rigid as the caste system in India.
Albatross wrote:
As a side note, I am glad that this discussion hasn't deteriorated into mud-slinging, as is so often the case between me and you when on this topic. I will freely admit that I play a large part in that, and I hold my hands up to it. You see, I actually share a lot of your sentiment, even if I (sometimes violently) disagree with how it should be applied. For what it's worth I think you're a decent bloke. I too believe that everyone should do their bit for the good of the nation, as that makes the nation stronger and more productive. Where I differ, it would seem, is that I believe that it should always be a free choice - engage with the community, be a productive citizen, and reap the benefits. We should have a country in which, if you work hard, you can achieve anything that is within your ability - we should give people the basic tools to help them: primary and secondary education, healthcare and protection. But I don't think our responsibility to others as citizens extends to giving them a living and putting food on their table if they can't be bothered to do it themselves.
I know you like to paint me as a heartless Tory bastard ( ), but I really am not, I assure you. I have known struggle. I'm not like the many conservatives you will see on this site who seem to delight in the misfortune of those who are vulnerable - the 'sucks to be you HURR' attitude is not part of my make-up. We SHOULD care for those who can't care for themselves.
But those who refuse to? Yes, it SHOULD suck to be them..
True and I'm glad to see us engaging in polite discourse as well. Just as you mention your 'sometimes violent' objections to my opinion, I believe with the conviction of a religion, in the support of the less fortunate to be facilitated back into functioning and productive people. I think our state support for the working citizen is something to be proud of.
As a socialist, as a supporter of the working man and woman, I do not hold any time for those who refuse to contribute. We all pull together. We all build and support each other. When you fall, after doing good work, the rest of us will help you, we will reenable you, we will give you all the tools and help necessary to support you back to working and contributing, knowing you'd help us in return.
I grew up in a small Cornish village, the village supported and protected those in it's boundaries who suffered calamity. I remember one widowed mother who's house suffered a fire, dad came back to the house and took our spare bed out of the guest room and we carried it up to their house, all the village had a whip-round collection for them, the local builders and decorators and electricians rebuilt the house over a few weeks of after work hours of labour. Mutual support and protection is what makes human beings so bloody awesome, competition and greed is often what shows us what makes human beings so bloody awful.
Albatross wrote:
I think you have a little bit of a rose-tinted view of the public services in this country, but I suppose that's to be expected. And I hardly think that spending MORE public money is the answer to our problems. As I pointed out earlier, we already spend horrendous amounts of public money. You know what I would love? I would love to give every household in the UK a brand-new laptop and free broadband connection. But we can't afford it.
I can assure you, having worked for 3 years in the NHS and then 3 years in Social Services, I have no illusions about how damaged many of the state services are. Much of this is down to overcomplication of the procedures, underfunding and dreadful, DREADFUL mismanagement of funds, being applied to middle management and remarketing and 'initiatives' instead of solid application to ground level staffing and equipment.
It's not rose-tinted, just a realisation that we do still retain good health service for all, that we do save childrens lives every day (despite baby P, Damilola Taylor etc, they remain exceptions, not rules), that we do provide home care to our elderly and disabled in society, that we do provide a financial support to those made unemployed. Of course, much of that is undermined by the tories cutting back everything and recently, new labour suffocating things with additional ranks of middle management and talking shops.
Every house in the UK doesn't need a new lap top and internet connection, so, hypothetically, lets give it to those who are means tested as needing them, lets assess the eligibility vs household income tax paid, lets ensure those who get them get taught how to use them...
So, let's not spend more public money, lets work out where it's currently being wasted and how it can be reapplied to those who actually need it.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Albatross and MGS, I have to say, this is probably one of the politest and best presented political debates I've seen on this website in a very long time. Congratulations and kudos to the pair of you for not dissolving into mud-slinging as per the norm in OT. You've restored my faith in the membership of Dakka.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
loki old fart wrote:
This work for dole is nothing new. It’s already happening, and was under Labour.
A young lad near me was working for dole plus 15 pounds a week (traveling money).
Because he was desperate for a job. 30 hours a week to make a good impression.
At the end of his four weeks, goodbye sucker and hello next hopeful.
The company could have set proper staff on, but why bother when people can be forced to work for free.
Yes indeed, 'someone I know' volunteered himself to work at a toy and model shop at one of these things, 6 months and then the promise of full time work. He worked to make the modeling and miniatures shop work well, had promotions, helped run the local wargames club, was in at 8.30 and finished at 6 most days. In return he got warned by the assistant downstairs that as soon as his time was up, he was getting chucked for the next goon to come along. He refused to believe that could be the case as the owners had promised him this job. A week later he overheard the manager and owner downstairs, debating getting the next 'trainee' in and what humanitarians they were for training someone into work and that it was a pity to lose the existing guy due to his knowledge and enthusiasm, but given the option of more free labour, they'd be mad not to take it.
**sidenote**
Said chump was then told he would be conducting a grand stock take of all their modelling and wargaming stock upstairs (get him to do the lot before giving him his marching orders). He did an excellent job, he cleaned as he carried out the stock take. He then stole himself a 5k point army of undead. No one was ever the wiser, but he did at least have something to show for his efforts and is content to this day that what he took was fair payment...
**sidenote ends**
These private enterprise relationships rarely work well unless strictly monitored. I always thought community based works and/or retraining into a trade was a far better notion. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote:Albatross and MGS, I have to say, this is probably one of the politest and best presented political debates I've seen on this website in a very long time. Congratulations and kudos to the pair of you for not dissolving into mud-slinging as per the norm in OT. You've restored my faith in the membership of Dakka.
Thanks Ketara, I am visiting family and friends in Cornwall for the last time before I emmigrate to the US, so am in a happy place and low on temper. I think Albatross and I have been a bit mindful to not flamebait each other this time around, it's a far more enjoyable discussion so far.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition on. There has been a bit of flaming between parties. That is to cease now, lest Frazzled swing the banhammer in a random fashion with equal amounts zest and joy.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. There has been a bit of flaming between parties. That is to cease now, lest Frazzled swing the banhammer in a random fashion with equal amounts zest and joy.
Weren't me! I'm a diplomat!
15594
Post by: Albatross
I'm back!
@Ketara - Thanks. Although when you mentioned the word 'faith', I nearly burst into flames. Just kidding.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Private enterprise as it currently exists for water corporations, has no competition, this is a monopoly, driven only by the need to generate profit and without the need to fight off rivals. It is not under the threat of veto and public opinion as a government controlled water board would be. This is inherantly detrimental to the consumer.
You're using the word 'monopoly' slightly inaccurately there. There are actually many water companies, though admittedly it IS difficult to change supplier. It IS, however, possible apparently. Just not in the Greater Manchester area. I checked.  It's greatly dependent on where you live, and yes, some companies exert a regional monopoly over their areas of coverage. Water is a tricky one, because the very nature of the utility means that it's difficult to provide multiple supplies of it. The costs and practicalities of running pipes to the opposite end of the country are prohibitive. So, water. Yes, water is a tricky one. But that's not to say that it would be any better under a state-run system. Despite the sort of recourse you say people would have to demonstrate their unhappiness with excessive prices or substandard service, a water veto would be... 'short-lived', let's say.
Further, what right did the conservative government have to sell the country's water to private industry? What then happens when we are told we must pay for pollution free air? Just what is it goverments are supposed to do if they have sold off all the nation's assets to private firms?
There are arguments for the privatisation of utilities such as water supply. For example United Utilities just tore up miles upon miles of old water piping under Manchester dating from the Victorian era. I know, I got stuck in fething traffic every day because of it! But this has undoubtedly improved Manchester's water supply. Manchester's drinking water was fething RANK when I first came here - the lovely Northumbrian tap-water we get in Middlesbrough tasted like mineral water in comparison. Drinking water standards have improved as a result of private investment. That has to be a good thing.
Why is a private company, driven by profit and appeasing shareholders, preferable to the resource of the nation remaining the province of the nation? The empowerment comes from the national resource belonging to the people. As it should.
Well, that's a matter of ideology. What I WILL say is that private companies tend to be more 'agile' than government bureacracies, more open to innovation, and have a more effiecient and pragmatic approach to problem-solving. To my mind, they are ideally placed to offer vital utilities such as gas, electric and yes, water.
Albatross wrote:
The Thatcherite government created the underclass
So there were no poor people post-Victorian era? I ask this because you cited it.
Apologies if you didn't mean it to, but this sounds glib, of course there were, what there was not were the sheer numbers of people in that category, hence 'Class'. I can tell you there wasn't the number of homeless on the streets when I was very young, they appeared in numbers within my lifetime, there certainly was not the level of unemployed until the height of Thatcher's dominion.
Progress is often painful. Sounds harsh, but there it is. Thatcher turned the British Economy from a basket-case into a powerhouse. Even Blair admitted that New Labour had inherited a 'Golden Economy' from the Tories. Yes, people lost jobs and that gives me no pleasure, but that long-term economic future of this country was secured, and I'm thankful. Or at least, I was until Labour fethed it again!
We don't always get the hero we want, but sometimes we DO get the hero we need, and that nasty woman was the right person at the right time.
Irresponsible borrowing? Do you ever stop to look at the gak they push through your letterbox every morning, assuring you how much more you can borrow? How great your credit is?
Yes, I file it next to the soggy tea-bags and empty milk-cartons in the bin. If I can do that, why can't more people? We need people in this country to start taking responsibility for their actions. When I was 18 I got myself into £5K of debt. For nothing. The bank phoned me up and OFFERED me a loan! Literally, 'would you like a loan'? I asked them how much, then signed for it the next day. I blew the lot.
MY DECISION. I don't blame the bank. They made it perfectly clear what the terms were, I was just irresponsible.
I had the last laugh though, I stayed under the radar for so long that they wrote the money off, and it's been so long that they can't legally pursue it now. My credit rating's back to normal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. There has been a bit of flaming between parties. That is to cease now, lest Frazzled swing the banhammer in a random fashion with equal amounts zest and joy.
Woah! Where?
I ain't flamed no-one guv, honest! Ask MGS, he was there. He'll tell you.
TELL HIM!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Lets just everyone keep it mellow.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I'll tell you guys whats funny, Albatross is a pinko lefty compared to me, and yet, i dont fight with MGS?
I dont get it... maybe i just have such a sunny disposition i invoke happiness in all around me?
Oh and MGS i am glad you are emigrating to the USA, thats one less vote for the Labour party!
On a serious note.. the USA is far more conservative than this place.. why are you moving? Missus a Yank?
9401
Post by: whatwhat
mattyrm wrote:I'll tell you guys whats funny, Albatross is a pinko lefty compared to me, and yet, i dont fight with MGS?
I dont get it...
Going by how you have expressed your definition of the left in the past on this site that statement simply reads as: "Albatross is not me".
That by the way mattyrm is an askew way of saying your definition of the left is completely unique to yourself. Just in case you can't get your head around that.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Matty, you would make Pinochet look like a lefty.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
mattyrm wrote:I'll tell you guys whats funny, Albatross is a pinko lefty compared to me, and yet, i dont fight with MGS?
I dont get it... maybe i just have such a sunny disposition i invoke happiness in all around me?
Oh and MGS i am glad you are emigrating to the USA, thats one less vote for the Labour party!
On a serious note.. the USA is far more conservative than this place.. why are you moving? Missus a Yank?
You don't fight with me because you don't tend to engage in discussion, only making soundbites and close ended statements. Your usual dismissal of the left and overblown catch-all insults or derogatory terminology usually mean I afford what you've said:
A) as comic relief
B) as unworthy of responding with a well thought out argument
Sorry, but there it is man. I suspect we'd be great drinking buddies if we stuck to talking about warhammer and nice bits of fanny, but I don't want to talk to you about politics when all you do is type 'blah, pinkos and liberals are wimps.... blah, treehuggers... blah, single mums.... Dole Scroungers! I blame the Skateboarding Muslim Paedophiles!!' It's like some skit off the fast show or Viz. I can't take you seriously. I just read the insults about anyone from the left being a softy and enabling the collapse of the nation and I just switch off to whatever point you were trying to make under all the flannel.
I've actually never voted for Labour... But I will be one more vote for Obama.
Side note, yep, my wife's a PA girl, gonna be living there by Christmas, if all goes to plan...
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Back on topic I have trouble comprehending how someone can wind up out of employment for an entire year without lack of any real effort to find a job. I understand not being able to find a position in your line of trade at times, but I can't understand why anyone would prefer the measly dole money over short term or part time employment while they look for something more suitable. Especially when you appeal far more to potential employers when you are actually in work. I'd wager people that end up on the dole for this long are not going for work they would actually be suitable for on the basis that they just don't want to do it. In my opinion something like this voluntary work might be a good deterrent to stop people being on the dole so long and not lowering their standards to do some casual work for a short while. Perhaps there are things which would act as a better deterrent but though I don't know.
221
Post by: Frazzled
whatwhat wrote:Back on topic I have trouble comprehending how someone can wind up out of employment for an entire year without lack of any real effort to find a job. I understand not being able to find a position in your line of trade at times, but I can't understand why anyone would prefer the measly dole money over short term or part time employment while they look for something more suitable. Especially when you appeal far more to potential employers when you are actually in work. I'd wager people that end up on the dole for this long are not going for work they would actually be suitable for on the basis that they just don't want to do it. In my opinion something like this voluntary work might be a good deterrent to stop people being on the dole so long and not lowering their standards to do some casual work for a short while. Perhaps there are things which would act as a better deterrent but though I don't know.
try it when you're 55 or 65.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:Back on topic I have trouble comprehending how someone can wind up out of employment for an entire year without lack of any real effort to find a job. I understand not being able to find a position in your line of trade at times, but I can't understand why anyone would prefer the measly dole money over short term or part time employment while they look for something more suitable. Especially when you appeal far more to potential employers when you are actually in work. I'd wager people that end up on the dole for this long are not going for work they would actually be suitable for on the basis that they just don't want to do it. In my opinion something like this voluntary work might be a good deterrent to stop people being on the dole so long and not lowering their standards to do some casual work for a short while. Perhaps there are things which would act as a better deterrent but though I don't know.
try it when you're 55 or 65.
What being out of work? I'm self employed. I'm looking for work all the time. Should I be expecting a slow down of uptake when I'm 55?
Or are you saying I wouldn't want to lower myself to casual work when I'm 55+?
Or it's hard to find casual work at that age?
...bit more clarity in general really.
221
Post by: Frazzled
whatwhat wrote:Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:Back on topic I have trouble comprehending how someone can wind up out of employment for an entire year without lack of any real effort to find a job. I understand not being able to find a position in your line of trade at times, but I can't understand why anyone would prefer the measly dole money over short term or part time employment while they look for something more suitable. Especially when you appeal far more to potential employers when you are actually in work. I'd wager people that end up on the dole for this long are not going for work they would actually be suitable for on the basis that they just don't want to do it. In my opinion something like this voluntary work might be a good deterrent to stop people being on the dole so long and not lowering their standards to do some casual work for a short while. Perhaps there are things which would act as a better deterrent but though I don't know.
try it when you're 55 or 65.
What being out of work? I'm self employed. I'm looking for work all the time. Should I be expecting a slow down of uptake when I'm 55?
Or are you saying I wouldn't want to lower myself to casual work when I'm 55+?
Or it's hard to find casual work at that age?
...bit more clarity in general really.
try finding a job when you're 55 - 65. Its a completely, utterly different world.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
In 2008, I quit my phd. I started looking for work soon afterwards. Initially, I applied for science positions, but I soon realised that my 2 years lab work in PhD counted for nothing in industry for some bs reason. So, I decided to spread the net. I applied for everything (this is about a month into unemployment). I applied in shops, in cafes, in cinemas. I got nothing back. The cinema replied saying they were looking for someone more qualified. The problem was, I have since learned, that I was being honest on my CV. I was putting down everything. This acted as a deterrant to people. They see a CV like that come in, and the top end jobs think "oh, a quitter." the bottom end think "overqualified, won't stick with us". So you're stuck in an unhappy limbo. Eventually, I got work in a security company by just outright lying about my qualifications. I claimed I'd never been to Uni, that I REALLY REALLY wanted to work in security. Oh and that I knew ninjitsu (I mean, I do, a bit, but not enough that I could actually win a fight with anything bigger than a yorkshire terrier). That was after 4 months of looking for work. Let me tell you, that is a DEPRESSING experience. You get insanely demotivated. I was applying for at least 20 jobs a week at the start. Then, after a month of that, I'd get so depressed I'd stop for a week, and then go back at it again. I only ever got called to one interview- the one where I lied on my CV. That's how it happens. HR depts are pretty bad at matching people to posts as well- I remember being turned down for a database job I was well qualified for because I had used a technical phrase that wasn't in the woman's list of buzzwords (multivariate).
Oh, and then after 4 months working in security, that company went under and left ireland, and I found out they'd been paying my tax into the british system, the irish system had no record of my employment, so I wasn't entitled to benefit. FUN! Took me most of 2009 to get back on my feet working in a creche that my aunt runs. So it was family connections at the time. But don't assume that because someone is well educated they are refusing to take manual jobs- it's not the case, we just don't get employed for them.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:Frazzled wrote:whatwhat wrote:Back on topic I have trouble comprehending how someone can wind up out of employment for an entire year without lack of any real effort to find a job. I understand not being able to find a position in your line of trade at times, but I can't understand why anyone would prefer the measly dole money over short term or part time employment while they look for something more suitable. Especially when you appeal far more to potential employers when you are actually in work. I'd wager people that end up on the dole for this long are not going for work they would actually be suitable for on the basis that they just don't want to do it. In my opinion something like this voluntary work might be a good deterrent to stop people being on the dole so long and not lowering their standards to do some casual work for a short while. Perhaps there are things which would act as a better deterrent but though I don't know.
try it when you're 55 or 65.
What being out of work? I'm self employed. I'm looking for work all the time. Should I be expecting a slow down of uptake when I'm 55?
Or are you saying I wouldn't want to lower myself to casual work when I'm 55+?
Or it's hard to find casual work at that age?
...bit more clarity in general really.
try finding a job when you're 55 - 65. Its a completely, utterly different world.
Fair one. Not something I can speak with much knowledge about. But all the same, I cant imagine the bulk of people on dole in the UK are mainly sitting in this age group.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Agreed, I have o info on statistics in the UK. I was just noting the comment about finding work.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Yeah to be fair MGS i dont actually mean 50% of that i say regarding politics... you know "march them all into the sea at gunpoint" i don't think "pinko" is a term people use when they are being serious do you? That sort of stuff is of course, comic relief, and i think im about the same as albatross in political viewpoints.
Except skateboarding muslim's, i could live without them.
I'm not really super right wing, for example, i would vote Obama over the other guys at the moment. The Republican party are just too chock full of the Jesus juice!
PA eh? Im off to CA on Saturday, Vegas for a week then time with the missus famlily and such.. and then i drag her ass back over here.
Enjoy yourself over there, but remember.. the grass is always greener.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Heh, it's funny, but becoming a teacher has made me a lot more right wing than I used to be in some ways and simultaneously more left wing.
I'm complicated!
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ME!
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I understand mate..
I can just imagine being in your shoes myself...
A large and disinterested child is a bully.. a thug in waiting, he in unruly and rude, one day, he swears at you and throws a chair across the room. You have the child suspended and invite his parents to the school. They arrive late one day, they smell of alcohol, they wear shellsuits and smoke constantly, they swear alot. How does a poor child get a better start in life, when he has this type of influence upon him?
A week later, the child returns. You look upon him differently, you realise his struggle, you have empathy. You offer a hand of friendship to him, and then he spits in your face and in a fit of rage you bludgeon him about the head with a bench vice until he loses conciousness.
Did i do the right thing i ask myself?
Yes yes.. a good deed it was.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I think, really, what mattyrm is trying to say, and rightfully so, is that we all need to beat the hell out of each other (sometimes with a bench vice) once in a while.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
They fit in the hand so nicely, those vice benches...
15594
Post by: Albatross
Benches are my main vice. I love a good bench, me.
Incidentally, what do you do as your business, whatwhat? If you don't mind me asking that is?
21967
Post by: Tyyr
Ahtman wrote:I think, really, what mattyrm is trying to say, and rightfully so, is that we all need to beat the hell out of each other (sometimes with a bench vice) once in a while.
Couldn't hurt.
Culturally that is.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ah, there we go.
There have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.
Demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party head quarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof.
Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822
An absolute disgrace. Wait 'til you see the video. And when you watch it, remember that these people are rioting because they think the tax-payer should bear the majority of the cost of educating them. Scum. Total scum.
I am incredibly angry about this - these people do not represent me at all.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:Ah, there we go.
There have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.
Demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party head quarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof.
Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822
An absolute disgrace. Wait 'til you see the video. And when you watch it, remember that these people are rioting because they think the tax-payer should bear the majority of the cost of educating them. Scum. Total scum.
I am incredibly angry about this - these people do not represent me at all.
Shoot one or two of them and the riot stops. We don't have riots in the South.
15594
Post by: Albatross
...but you do have lynchings occasionally. Yeah, I think I prefer our way.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:...but you do have lynchings occasionally. Yeah, I think I prefer our way.
When? You've been watching too much Hollywood again.
Meanwhile, from afair you're starting to look like.. France. Watch out for burning cars....
241
Post by: Ahtman
We also haven't shot any students in a while either but you brought that up.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:We also haven't shot any students in a while either but you brought that up.
Exactly. Look how long its worked.
Lets compromise. Get some bulls, some chewing gum, and a Bic lighter. I think you can figure out the rest...
15594
Post by: Albatross
There you go, Frazzled. Go nuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States
Interesting pictures on that wiki by the way, Smirky Von Smugness.
How about you just act like a mod and stop trolling what has been a perfectly reasonable thread so far?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Who's trolling? You brought up the hooligans. I just provided options. You should be thanking me, not being a horse's patootey. And there I went and procured the secondary "bulls in a China shop" option and you get persnickety. Did you not have a Bic lighter?
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Albatross wrote:Ah, there we go. There have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.
Demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party head quarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof.
Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822 An absolute disgrace. Wait 'til you see the video. And when you watch it, remember that these people are rioting because they think the tax-payer should bear the majority of the cost of educating them. Scum. Total scum. I am incredibly angry about this - these people do not represent me at all.
With regard to this, I agree with their sentiment, but very much not their methodology or behaviour. There's a lot of pissed off students who voted Lib Dem due to their commitment to oppose rises in Tuition Fees. Several Lib Dem MPs gained or retained their seats on this matter. And suddenly, the promise goes out the window. With the size of the possible fees, there is a distinct risk that apt pupils from lower income homes simple won't be able to afford University. It was bad enough when Labour buttfethed a generation with the initial introduction, but this is like getting a horse in to give you a real gaper.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mr Mystery wrote:Albatross wrote:Ah, there we go.
There have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.
Demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party head quarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof.
Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822
An absolute disgrace. Wait 'til you see the video. And when you watch it, remember that these people are rioting because they think the tax-payer should bear the majority of the cost of educating them. Scum. Total scum.
I am incredibly angry about this - these people do not represent me at all.
With regard to this, I agree with their sentiment, but very much not their methodology or behaviour.
There's a lot of pissed off students who voted Lib Dem due to their commitment to oppose rises in Tuition Fees. Several Lib Dem MPs gained or retained their seats on this matter. And suddenly, the promise goes out the window.
With the size of the possible fees, there is a distinct risk that apt pupils from lower income homes simple won't be able to afford University. It was bad enough when Labour buttfucked a generation with the initial introduction, but this is like getting a horse in to give you a real gaper.
Sounds like they need to get a couple of wagons full of blackpowder and head to Parliament.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Arrgh! Found inadvertant gap in swear filter! Apologies all!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are threatening to recall their constituent MPs, which for the Coalition isn't such a good thing. Start losing seats to Labour (and they are NOT doing well in opinion polls apparently) and we could be on for a new General Election.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mr Mystery wrote:Arrgh! Found inadvertant gap in swear filter! Apologies all!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are threatening to recall their constituent MPs, which for the Coalition isn't such a good thing. Start losing seats to Labour (and they are NOT doing well in opinion polls apparently) and we could be on for a new General Election.
Well if you call wagons full of blackpowder and handing out weird moustached masks "recalling their constituent MPs" then there you go.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
I like frazz's idea
4042
Post by: Da Boss
My experience of british university students was an odd one. They pay fees, at least some fees, which irish students don't. And yet, they seemed to value their "lifestyle" and status a lot more than any irish student I met. I was over learning a new molecular technique in the University of Liverpool School of Tropical Diseases. So I was kipping in the student digs. It was an eye opening experience! First off, all their food provided for them by the uni, score! I went down for breakfast and asked the dinner ladies (who were lovely, but taking abuse from some snotty little fether) how much of each thing I was allowed. Apparently, no limit! Sweet, I thought, and loaded myself down with meat, bread, fruit and tea. Sitting at the table, I started chatting with a couple of students. As I was doing so, I was tearing open the bread rolls with my hands, and stuffing bacon into them, and then putting the resultant delicious treats into my pockets for lunch, along with an apple and a banana. The students wer looking at me funny, and then one of them asked "What are you DOING?" I said "Oh, this is lunch!" and they immediately started laughing heartily and gave me that patronizing look that some english manage so well.
I was baffled. I mean, in a n irish uni, EVERYONE would have nicked the food, on principle. I mean, THEY SAID TO TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU COULD GET! I was funded for the trip and I still did it, because...because....it was free! Free food! Student's strongest instinct right?
Anyway. I later saw those students eating out in a cafe, which I had previously deemed too expensive (being mindful of my funding, see). That night, I decided to go to the pub and see what it was like. I arrived at about 6pm and sat reading a book and sipping by beer. Nobody arrived until 10pm, by which time I'd had...4? And was feeling pretty friendly. I saw kids buying 2 shots, 2 pints. I assumed they were buying for their whole table, and then saw them down each one in succession. In 40 minutes they got drunker than I'd gotten in 4 hours. Then they started to well, misbehave! Flashing their arses, yelling, puking, throwing food...it was bedlam. Definitely gave me impression that UK students were pretty irrresponsible, and was driven home by the fact that they all had loans out to be there!
15594
Post by: Albatross
Mr Mystery wrote:Albatross wrote:Ah, there we go.
There have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.
Demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party head quarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof.
Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822
An absolute disgrace. Wait 'til you see the video. And when you watch it, remember that these people are rioting because they think the tax-payer should bear the majority of the cost of educating them. Scum. Total scum.
I am incredibly angry about this - these people do not represent me at all.
With regard to this, I agree with their sentiment, but very much not their methodology or behaviour.
There's a lot of pissed off students who voted Lib Dem due to their commitment to oppose rises in Tuition Fees. Several Lib Dem MPs gained or retained their seats on this matter. And suddenly, the promise goes out the window.
With the size of the possible fees, there is a distinct risk that apt pupils from lower income homes simple won't be able to afford University. It was bad enough when Labour buttfethed a generation with the initial introduction, but this is like getting a horse in to give you a real gaper.
So what you're saying is, they are right to be upset that they don't have to pay their own way? I love the smell of self-interest in the morning.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Da Boss...what you encountered were not students, but 'fething students'.
They are a distinct sub sect of Studentdom.
221
Post by: Frazzled
loki old fart wrote:I like frazz's idea
But if its done right they have to hav big floppy hats and baggy pantaloons. Maybe carry some signs declaiming "Down with Parliament! Up with the King!" "He's your King too!" "Oliver is French" and "if its Good Enough for King Charles its Good Enough for me!"
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Damn those filthy students!
I saw the riots today.. oh yeah, i really want to pay for those guys to go to school. 
I wish i was there man, with my trusty baton gun. They scatter like rats when Matty pulls out Sarah-Jane!
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Is that...is that a gun that fires batons? Really? Wow. I love living in a dystopian future!
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Mate thats a real gun, its super-cool!
I had one issued when i was in Iraq, it had a folding stock, a red dot sight.. it was the bees knees.
Just try tossing stuff at Matty when Sarah-Jane is ready for action!
|
|
