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.

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!

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.

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?!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This was New Labour policy back in the late 90s. When did they stop doing it?

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!'

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?

It makes you akin to the Nazis, apparently.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All the more incentive to find a job then, no?

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)?

Mr Mystery wrote:All the more incentive to find a job then, no?

I thought that was implied, to be honest...

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.