Tory adviser quits

[Oswyntail]

...You are right that the general populace have decided that the Goverment's rule is the best way, however there will always be people who don't think the Government's rule is the best way but nevertheless, the Government forces its regime on them. Why does the Government. then, not have duties to support such people?....

I think this view is fundamentally flawed, as you imply that the Government is a separate entity from the general population. While that may well be true in other systems (absolute monarchy, hierarchy, theocracy etc etc) ours is a representative democracy with (almost) universal franchise. It is not a separate entity, but is a part of the population, the arm by which the ideas of the majority of the population are implemented. And, as the population seems to believe that it is right to support its weakest members, it has developed a "safety net" system for those members. But provision of that "safety net" is not necessarily a duty on Government if it is being called upon to support those who are not among the populations weakest members. IMHO, rights and duties necessarily go side by side; the right of the weakest to claim the support of society is matched by the duty of those who are able to contribute to society to the best of their ability.

 

[Greenback]

Agreed! To me that is true socialism!

 

[Oswyntail]

Agreed! To me that is true socialism!

Funnily enough, this, to me, is true Conservatism! Much more common ground around that the papers and politicians would have us think.

 

[Nick W]

Nick, I would disagree that people who want to opt out of contributing to society should be supported by the majority who are happy with the system the way it is. I don't think they should be persecuted, but I think you would find that in the earliest days of history, co-operation between members of a tribe would have been essential, and those that did not want to work within the tribal system would have been cast out to fend for themselves. By this, of course, I don;t mean the old, sick, or injured, but those that made a decision to stay in the cave watching Jeremy Kyle rather than going hunting, fishimg, making clothes or preparing food.

Fair point - the point is that in the earlier days of history, those that are cast out would not be coerced. There is no way for a person in Britain to escape coercion save moving to another country. I think the coercion is absolutely reasonable (most people like law and order) but don't think the state should deny food, drink and shelter to those who need it but don't wish to work with the constructed framework of our society to obtain it. You make an excellent case for preventing people using their job seeker's allowance to buy luxury goods like television!

[quopte]
Having said that, there is little that can be done if someone really does not want to work, but their existence should not include the luxuries of life. They should be given food, medicines and shelter, but that is that. And I'm not talking about someone who has lost their job, but those who feel it is their right not to contribute anything at all, but to receive whatever they want.[/quote]
I totally agree with you. The problem is that it's difficult to both sufficiently support those who are unemployed from actively seeking work and deny luxuries to those who aren't. Perhaps JSA should be expensed so that unemployed people could claim additional job seeking expenses such as transport, uniform and stationary.

When it comes to the woman mentioned as an example, I don't really see how you can immediately assume that she has been let down by three different partners. Perhaps she was to blame? We simply don't know, but the former does fit better into your idealised vision of the world and its inhabitants. perhaps you should leave the debating hall once ina while and visit the rest of us in the real world?

You are absolutely correct which is why I said "let down or been let down by". I have no idealised vision of the world - I think we live in a broken world surrounded by evil. Four students at the university I'm at have already died this year, for example. The university is also associated with some of the highest rates of depression and suicide.

Nothing is really that black and white, there are all sorts of shades of grey. Not everyone on benefits are lazy, good for nothing shirkers, but some are. Not everyone in employment is hard working, some don't pull their weight, some are violent towards their partners and some are alcoholics and drug addicts who somehow manage to hold down jobs.

Absolutely, there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" person despite what the tabloids might like to think. I would also suggest that no-one chooses to be lazy - time and time again I wish I could work harder but fail to do so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think this view is fundamentally flawed, as you imply that the Government is a separate entity from the general population. While that may well be true in other systems (absolute monarchy, hierarchy, theocracy etc etc) ours is a representative democracy with (almost) universal franchise. It is not a separate entity, but is a part of the population, the arm by which the ideas of the majority of the population are implemented. And, as the population seems to believe that it is right to support its weakest members, it has developed a "safety net" system for those members. But provision of that "safety net" is not necessarily a duty on Government if it is being called upon to support those who are not among the populations weakest members. IMHO, rights and duties necessarily go side by side; the right of the weakest to claim the support of society is matched by the duty of those who are able to contribute to society to the best of their ability.

Absolutely true, the Government is just a collection of individuals, whose information about the needs and wishes of the population is generalised at best and wrong at worse. The majority of the population would agree that it is wrong to take someone's life. The big question is, if the state withdraws support in the form of benefits to people and as a result they die through starvation, disease or other cause, has the state not taken their life?

 

[scotsman]

Here we go again. Those poor little lambs who *have* to go to work to support a family?! That's exactly how it bloody well should be! For all the bluster, nobody has yet come up with a convincing argument as to why it should be a lifestyle choice to stay out of work on benefits and expect somebody else to pick up the tab. Now, being in a low-paid job and needing the help of the State to top up those wages in order to live is a different matter entirely. There's a segment of this annoying catch-all 'the poor' that deserve help. As do those unable to work due to sickness. Oh, and nice use of selective quoting Scotsman......

Selective indeed - how do you support a familt on £5.83/hour?

 

[yorkie]

The big question is, if the state withdraws support in the form of benefits to people and as a result they die through starvation, disease or other cause, has the state not taken their life?

By that logic, most of the world 'states' are 'taking lives' - as we pay far more in benefits than most!

It is difficult to reach any conclusion other than benefits are too high in this country. As a proportion, how many of the world's population can expect to be housed, fed, smoke, watch TV etc without working? Not many, but that is the expectation that some people have in this country. Why?

You see a significant number of people on very low incomes with TVs, cars, and some of them smoke too. These people simply couldn't do that in other countries, they would be struggling to be alive. What would happen to these people if they were one of the majority of people in the planet, living in a more sustainable country, would they be able to lead such a life? No.

Unfortunately there are significant minority of people in this country who have an expectation of car ownership, a place to live, luxury goods, yet do not have an expectation that they have to work for it. Kids these days are brought up to expect luxury goods, to expect to be able to drive a car, and to expect benefits that support that lifestyle if they are unable to support those things themselves. I find that extremely concerning. It is unsustainable and has to change.

 

[Greenback]

There are two types of benefit recipient (at least) in the UK, and we ar eind anger of getting them mixed up.

There are those who have been injured, become sick or unemployed through no fault of their own, and require a little support from the rest of us who ar eworking in order to get by. This will probably always be the case, ad I do not object to these sort of people maintaining a car while they are in need, as it is often a necessity in order to return to work.

Then there are those who choose to claim their benefits when they are not really ill, are not crippled with a bad back as they say, and often work in the black economy as well. These sort of claimants are not lazy as such, but greedy, and perhaps these are the people who might be described as choosing to opt out of oru system?!

There are also sub groups of the second type, including those who are incapable of holding a job down through either personality failings, or substance addiction. How much control over this an individual has is open to debate, but these kinds of people ahve always existed and always will.

To me, it is those who choose to cheat the system, either by claiming they are unable to work, or because they have no intention of working at all, that make the current system unsustainable. The fact that expectations of society are so high is a side effect of the consumer and celebrity obsessed age that we live in, but one that certainly contributes to the selfishness of these times.

 

[Nick W]

By that logic, most of the world 'states' are 'taking lives' - as we pay far more in benefits than most!

Aren't we lucky that we live in a democracy where people's lives are valued and people's needs are generally supplied.

It is difficult to reach any conclusion other than benefits are too high in this country. As a proportion, how many of the world's population can expect to be housed, fed, smoke, watch TV etc without working? Not many, but that is the expectation that some people have in this country. Why?

~£55 a week of JSA is too high? I spend more than that a week on food.

Yes, not all countries obey human rights defined by the UN. I realise one can argue there is no reason why they should.

Also, in many of these countries the state coerces the people less, so has less of a duty. In many African countries, we might expect a reasonable duty of care to be not destroying crops and natural produces of food. In our country where all land belongs to someone, it's more reasonable to expect food to be provided directly.

You see a significant number of people on very low incomes with TVs, cars, and some of them smoke too. These people simply couldn't do that in other countries, they would be struggling to be alive. What would happen to these people if they were one of the majority of people in the planet, living in a more sustainable country, would they be able to lead such a life? No.

All that demonstrates is that we have a better established welfare state than other countries.

Unfortunately there are significant minority of people in this country who have an expectation of car ownership, a place to live, luxury goods, yet do not have an expectation that they have to work for it. Kids these days are brought up to expect luxury goods, to expect to be able to drive a car, and to expect benefits that support that lifestyle if they are unable to support those things themselves. I find that extremely concerning. It is unsustainable and has to change.

You are right that there is a very strong argument for restricting what people can use their benefits for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are also sub groups of the second type, including those who are incapable of holding a job down through either personality failings, or substance addiction. How much control over this an individual has is open to debate, but these kinds of people ahve always existed and always will.

I think you've got to the crux of the debate - I often don't think I have worked that hard to reach the great position that I have obtained. I think I was born more blessed than others, and thus will always defend and support those who were born less able to create the same amount of wealth, or indeed to work at all. This is why I am a passionate left-leaner.

 

[theblackwatch]

~£55 a week of JSA is too high? I spend more than that a week on food.

Obviously by choice rather than necessity. My food bill comes to less than half that.

 

[90019]

~£55 a week of JSA is too high? I spend more than that a week on food.

£65.45 for someone over 25.

I spend much less on food, and I generally buy more than I need.

 

[Nick W]

Obviously by choice rather than necessity. My food bill comes to less than half that.

Actually it's more that we're forced to by college, and I'd rather pay £2 for a sandwich at lunch than make my own.

It's kinda strange that I can go to Sainsbury's, buy a £4 steak and still say I'm saving money .

£65.45 for someone over 25.

< £10 a day - so working 2 hours a day at minimum wage is still beneficial! Problem - I think not. Is the only other benefit a "capable" person without dependents, housing/council tax benefit?

 

[yorkie]

Actually it's more that we're forced to by college, and I'd rather pay £2 for a sandwich at lunch than make my own.

This is a right everyone in the world must have and if there is any risk that it can't happen, a march needs to be made to whoever is in charge and their premises should be ransacked. The result would then be pre-packaged sandwiches for all! Therefore the march must proceed Oh and the sandwiches wouldn't be paid for until a certain salary is reached, and then only a tiny amount would be repaid each month. This would result in people who will never earn that amount wearing banners saying "Do I look like I am made of money?" to which the answer is "No, so you probably won't pay anything so stop moaning" To which they will have no logical answer but carry on moaning anyway.

OK I am using irony and satire, but you can see my point?

At the end of the day some people are making lifestyle choices that are unsustainable. A £2 sandwich rather than making one at home is a lifestyle choice that only people who have spare cash can choose.

BTW a reality check on the student loan issue (OK not the same issue but it is related in that the level of subsidy is, like benefits, unsustainable): it's cheaper to not repay the loan (link)

 

[Nick W]

OK I am using irony and satire, but you can see my point?

No - if anyone begs me when I'm on the way to Sainsburies's, I will buy them a pre-packaged sandwich because I know the state has failed to feed them. I am fully aware that some of them will have flats, and will have received the £65 and spent it all. Actually I haven't had that at all this year, but in the summer I probably brought about 1-3 a week. One guy was lucky enough to get a boots duck wrap that I forgot to take to work that morning. Another guy was lucky enough to receive a Macdonald's because Sainsburies was shut.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Benefits + students loans are sustainable - the overall level of Government spending may not be, but other things are included in this aggregate.


No one has any more thoughts on the Tory advisor's "decision" to quit then?

 

[theblackwatch]

Actually it's more that we're forced to by college, and I'd rather pay £2 for a sandwich at lunch than make my own.

The sandwich proves my point.

 

[Geezertronic]

No - if anyone begs me when I'm on the way to Sainsburies's, I will buy them a pre-packaged sandwich because I know the state has failed to feed them. I am fully aware that some of them will have flats, and will have received the £65 and spent it all. Actually I haven't had that at all this year, but in the summer I probably brought about 1-3 a week. One guy was lucky enough to get a boots duck wrap that I forgot to take to work that morning. Another guy was lucky enough to receive a Macdonald's because Sainsburies was shut.

I find sections of that quote patronising as I unfortunately do with sections of your other posts.

How do you know that the state has failed to feed them? That is an assumption based on your opinion of them. Whilst it is commendable to buy them something (which I also have done in preference to giving money out), I wouldn't like to patronise them by surmising why they are in that situation.

 

[Nick W]

I find sections of that quote patronising as I unfortunately do with sections of your other posts.

How do you know that the state has failed to feed them? That is an assumption based on your opinion of them. Whilst it is commendable to buy them something (which I also have done in preference to giving money out), I wouldn't like to patronise them by surmising why they are in that situation.

I do apologise if I come across patronising. You are right that I am assuming that they wouldn't accept the food if they had been fed, and that if they accept it off me, they accept it from the state. Some in fact do deny the offer to buy food - I'm sure we can both have a fair stab at what they're after. I am aware of the situation - the council runs no homeless shelters nor gives out free food. The best they do is that people can buy vouchers from the council to give to beggars which they can then use to buy food and other necessary goods. There are various shelters run by volunteers, and I happen to know some of them but they are all, sadly, at capacity.

I am very glad that you share the belief of the need to feed these people.

 

[Donny Dave]

No - if anyone begs me when I'm on the way to Sainsburies's, I will buy them a pre-packaged sandwich because I know the state has failed to feed them. I am fully aware that some of them will have flats, and will have received the £65 and spent it all. Actually I haven't had that at all this year, but in the summer I probably brought about 1-3 a week. One guy was lucky enough to get a boots duck wrap that I forgot to take to work that morning. Another guy was lucky enough to receive a Macdonald's because Sainsburies was shut.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Benefits + students loans are sustainable - the overall level of Government spending may not be, but other things are included in this aggregate.


No one has any more thoughts on the Tory advisor's "decision" to quit then?

Changing the subject a bit here, but the state has not failed to feed people. Life in a democracy is about choices, responsibilty and consequences.

The person in Nick's post has chosen not to support himself. IE Not get a job and feed himself, so he must suffer the consequences, such as begging for food and hoping someone will support him.

If people like that choose not to be responsible, why should others accept that responsibilty?

And that brings us back onto the subject of benefits ....

People make a conscious decision not to help and support themselves, as they expect others to support them, which is why benefits need to be cut. In other words, people need to start accepting personal responsibility again.

 

[Oswyntail]

....
The person in Nick's post has chosen not to support himself. IE Not get a job and feed himself, so he must suffer the consequences, such as begging for food and hoping someone will support him....

Given that you do not know the person (or am I assuming too much) you do not know this. He could be one of the people who needs the safety net. And if you truly believe that everyone who does not have a job makes that choice, then I hope that you never have to face that situation yourself - because, believe me, it is painful to lose a job and all the assumptions that go with it.

 

[Donny Dave]

I've just spent 2 years claiming Job Seekers, and I hated every minute of it ....

 

[Oswyntail]

I've just spent 2 years claiming Job Seekers, and I hated every minute of it ....

And was it your choice? It certainly wasn't mine.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Changing the subject a bit here, but the state has not failed to feed people. Life in a democracy is about choices, responsibilty and consequences.

The person in Nick's post has chosen not to support himself. IE Not get a job and feed himself, so he must suffer the consequences, such as begging for food and hoping someone will support him.

If people like that choose not to be responsible, why should others accept that responsibilty?

And that brings us back onto the subject of benefits ....

People make a conscious decision not to help and support themselves, as they expect others to support them, which is why benefits need to be cut. In other words, people need to start accepting personal responsibility again.

A post like that makes me very sad to associate myself with a country that has members that can think like that. I find it disgusting that you are assuming that through laziness and not getting a job they are homeless, and they do not deserve support. Anyone who is sleeping rough deserves support and help to get back on their feet. They are at the bottom of society with no one to turn to for help. They need charities and the like to live. They don't need somebody sneering at them saying they won't help because it was their choice. Yes, people make mistakes, and yes, it could be their mistakes that led to their situation, but can you honestly say you have never made a mistake?

I'm sorry if anyone finds my post offensive, but I felt it had to be said.

 

[Donny Dave]

And was it your choice? It certainly wasn't mine.

No it wasn't my choice. They company I was working for at the time lost a huge contract, and they had no choice but to make 60% of their workforce redundant if they wanted to survive.

A post like that makes me very sad to associate myself with a country that has members that can think like that. I find it disgusting that you are assuming that through laziness and not getting a job they are homeless, and they do not deserve support. Anyone who is sleeping rough deserves support and help to get back on their feet. They are at the bottom of society with no one to turn to for help. They need charities and the like to live. They don't need somebody sneering at them saying they won't help because it was their choice. Yes, people make mistakes, and yes, it could be their mistakes that led to their situation, but can you honestly say you have never made a mistake?

I'm sorry if anyone finds my post offensive, but I felt it had to be said.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of people who could make their lives better if they make a little effort in life, but they choose not to, instead they rely on others to support them.

It's that sort of person who mask the problems of those who are in geniune need of support.

 

[yorkie]

ralph - problem is, David has a point. While Nick W's actions are most commendable, if someone thinks they can spend their money on booze (or whatever) and then not plan ahead to make a sandwich, and then realise that they can't buy a sandwich as they wasted their money, but it doesn't matter because Nick will buy them a sandwich, then how will they ever learn their lesson?

Now, if Nick bought them a sandwich as a one-off, to help a friend in need, fair enough, that's sensible and I commend Nick for it, but if the same person keeps doing it, and Nick keeps buying them a sandwich, is this actually helping them long-term? I honestly do not think it does.

The problem is that if you help people so much that they become dependent on handouts, that person may not appreciate the handouts, and may not do anything to avoid being reliant on the handouts, and if those handouts stop, they may then be unhappy.

The solution is to help people become self-sufficient, not to bail them out constantly.