Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

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.

I absolutely bloody hate Steve Bell...

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

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...

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.

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...

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

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

@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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

Lets just everyone keep it mellow.

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?

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.

Matty, you would make Pinochet look like a lefty.

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...