Tory adviser quits

[theblackwatch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11798366

Lord Young has quit his position as enterprise adviser after claiming people "have never had it so good". It just shows what effect the receession has had on people like him. His claim about most people and mortgages was interesting - I suspect that the amount of people who actually have a mortage is considerably less than half the population. Out of touch with reality?

 

[Oswyntail]

Well he made a thoughtless remark and has paid the price. Contrasts with some of the heel-dragging of the other lot, but that's in the past. But there is a germ of truth in what he said: the overall standard of living in this country is very high on most measures; and most mortgage holders (and I suspect that is a higher proportion of families in this country than the OP suggests) will have benefited from the low interest rates. But there are some groups who are suffering (possibly not as many as some would like us to believe) and that is what makes the remarks so insensitive.

 

[Greenback]

Can I just point out that mortgage payments are but a small part of people;s monthly expenses when they have a mortgage. Other costs, such as energy, water, council tax and food have been rising sharply recently. So even assuming that more people have mortgages than don't, which i donl;t think would be right, then the fact that mortgage rates ar elow has merely helped to offset the higher costs iof other necessities.

It was a crass remark, which serves only to show how completely out of touch politicians are with ordinary people, and the struggle that a lot fo working people have at the moment just to keep going.

 

[mumrar]

Can I just point out that mortgage payments are but a small part of people;s monthly expenses when they have a mortgage. Other costs, such as energy, water, council tax and food have been rising sharply recently. So even assuming that more people have mortgages than don't, which i donl;t think would be right, then the fact that mortgage rates ar elow has merely helped to offset the higher costs iof other necessities.

It was a crass remark, which serves only to show how completely out of touch politicians are with ordinary people, and the struggle that a lot fo working people have at the moment just to keep going.

And that's without all the extra people that have been or are about to be dumped out of work. He may have never had it so good, but he's not paying interest on his house amongst a host of other perks. Our politicians now seem to spend their entire time in office making a grab to get as much as possible for themselves before their grip on power slips.

 

[scotsman]

Interesting stuff. Usually when these things happen, the opposition do the usual sack 'em calls to no avail. This time, however, he crossed the line too far and paid for it.

 

[theblackwatch]

And that's without all the extra people that have been or are about to be dumped out of work. He may have never had it so good, but he's not paying interest on his house amongst a host of other perks. Our politicians now seem to spend their entire time in office making a grab to get as much as possible for themselves before their grip on power slips.

I wonder if he thinks he hasn't had it so good now? And what about savers? The low interest rates mean that, in real terms (taking into account inflation), their savings are going down in value. Never better!

 

[Greenback]

Indeed, there is always a general assumption that low interest rates are good, but that is not the case for everyone!

 

[Old Timer]

So can anyone on here who has been baying for blood tell me exactly WHAT good this has done ?

What has been achieved that is of benefit to the Country or indeed to Politics ?

Or maybe all that has been achieved is to stifle debate and free speech/thinking.

Lets examine a few points shall we ?

For the last 13 years the population of the UK has benefitted from low mortgage rates and has gone on a massive spending spree to the extent that most people are loaded with substantial debt.

Even the "poor" have Sky TV, many of the unemployed seem to run vehicles of one sort or another.

Food and petrol prices have not kept in line with inflation but have become cheaper in relative terms, and other consumer goods are cheaper relatively than they have ever been.

Seems to me like we are having it good, or at least we were.

So the outcome of this will be to actually damage Political thought and debate in the Country.

As usual the Left have orchestrated the calls for his resignation based upon mistruths and disingenuous statements, indeed was it not THAT many months ago that Labour was saying precisely the same ? How many of his detractors, here as well as elsewhere, have even bothered to read the full details of what he said, and the context within which it was said ?

I would finally contrast his resignation with the actions of the previous Government who never resigned unless the were subject to a putsche from within.

As the saying goes, the British public get the Government they deserve.

 

[mumrar]

What has been achieved that is of benefit to the Country or indeed to Politics ?

So, as there's no benefit to politics, then nothing should be done. If I was really good at my job, but made a habit of assaulting people when drunk off duty, I'd hardly expect to keep my job because it wouldn't gain anything to the railway.

Food and petrol prices have not kept in line with inflation but have become cheaper in relative terms

Which petrol prices have you been looking at then? In Jan 2007 it cost 85pence/litre, now in November 2010 it costs 120pence/litre average.

 

[scotsman]

Even the "poor" have Sky TV

Yes, and it's one of the few luxuries in their lives. If you can't afford much else, then it can make a lot of difference to them. Of course, those who are extremely poor won't be able to support a subscription to it.

 

[Ferret]

Yes, and it's one of the few luxuries in their lives. If you can't afford much else, then it can make a lot of difference to them. Of course, those who are extremely poor won't be able to support a subscription to it.

Am I the only one who is fed up of the term 'the poor'? Who are 'the poor'? Well, there's the terminally lazy, some of whom get far more (tax free) than I earn through getting off my arse and going to work at all hours of the day. I don't describe them as poor at all!

Then, there's the unskilled migrants who have come here to scrounge off us working people, who I really couldn't give two hoots about.

I'm all for my taxes being used to support those who cannot do any form of work through *genuine* sickness - and I'm more than happy for them to have an equivalent standard of living to me (so, not poor at all).

So, just who are 'the poor' that those on the left wing of politics keep hyperventilating about?

 

[Old Timer]

So, as there's no benefit to politics, then nothing should be done. If I was really good at my job, but made a habit of assaulting people when drunk off duty, I'd hardly expect to keep my job because it wouldn't gain anything to the railway.

Do you really think that is an apt comparison ?

Which petrol prices have you been looking at then? In Jan 2007 it cost 85pence/litre, now in November 2010 it costs 120pence/litre average.

Taking figures out of context does nothing to support your argument and rather undermines it. Taking petrol prices in 1985 and adjusting them to todays prices, shows petrol as as being £1.00 per litre as opposed to the current UK average of £1.19 per litre. Source : http://www.Petrolprices.com

The same site shows that the lowest price available in Birmingham is 115.9p, in Redditch the figure is 117.9p

 

[Nick W]

So can anyone on here who has been baying for blood tell me exactly WHAT good this has done ?

What has been achieved that is of benefit to the Country or indeed to Politics ?

I'm going to claim that this has achieved at least two things:

1. A harmful advisor has been removed.
By not even recognising the recession in spite of overwhelming evidence, the former advisor has demonstrated to use he lacks either sound economic knowledge or sound judgement. Moreover, by stating that the slight decrease in mortgage payments for those with mortgages the outweighs the many that have been lost the jobs, and as a result suffered much higher losses, as a fraction of their income, ie all, not to mention physiological trauma, he has demonstrated that his priorities do not match the overall interest of the public.

Given that Government advisors have an vital input as to the Government's policies, it is likely that having an advisor who, both a) lacks sound economic knowledge or judgement and b) is out of line with the people's greater good will lead to the Government being more likely to act in ways that are harmful to the public's interest. By removing him from his position, the Government is more likely to act in the public's greater good.


2. It has been demonstrated that the public will not accept advisors who do not act in the public's interest.
Currently, I imagine that there are advisers who do not act for the greater good of the public, for various reasons such as self or business interest or a false belief that the needs of one sector of society are greater than another. The fact that the outrage was sufficient to force Lord Young to stand down sends message to other advisors that such behaviour will not be tolerated by the public. Moreover it creates a precedent for the public to demand advisers step down in the future on similar grounds.

Both these things therefore increase the level of accountability to the public of Government advisors. As a result, they will be more likely to act in the people's greater good, and there will be a greater chance of incompetent advisors being removed.


Most people believe that the Government should act in the public's greater good, and good luck arguing against this. Therefore, <b>the removal of the adviser can be considered a good thing for Britain and its politics.

Am I the only one who is fed up of the term 'the poor'? Who are 'the poor'? Well, there's the terminally lazy, some of whom get far more (tax free) than I earn through getting off my arse and going to work at all hours of the day. I don't describe them as poor at all!

Then, there's the unskilled migrants who have come here to scrounge off us working people, who I really couldn't give two hoots about.

I'm all for my taxes being used to support those who cannot do any form of work through *genuine* sickness - and I'm more than happy for them to have an equivalent standard of living to me (so, not poor at all).

So, just who are 'the poor' that those on the left wing of politics keep hyperventilating about?

Those that have a low level of wealth compared to the average in our society.

You say that there are people who work much less harder than you who earn more than you.
Either:
a) You are very stupid and are working eveb when you could earn more for working less.
b) You enjoy working, even if it means you earn less than you could, in which case you have no right to complain about those who choose not work.
c) You completely made that up. (most likely)
Which one is it?

 

[Ferret]

Those that have a low level of wealth compared to the average in our society.

You say that there are people who work much less harder than you who earn more than you.
Either:
a) You are very stupid and are working when you could earn more for not working.
b) You enjoying working, even if it means you earn less than you could, in which case you have no right to complain about those who choose not work.
c) You completely made that up. (most likely)
Which one is it?

Which is it?

Congratulations on posting an utter load of claptrap. You should be really proud. Not only have you managed to repeat yourself, you've managed to make yourself sound like a right idiot too!:roll:

I'm sorry to say that yes there are people who earn more by not working than they could if they did. Kudos to IDS for trying to change that. So, made up? I think not.

And I'm afraid I have every right to complain about those who choose not to work. For the main part, I do enjoy my job though - in what way does that prevent me from lambasting the terminally lazy?!:roll:

And yes, working for a living really is stupid. A lifetime sat in front of an X Box is far more satisfying isn't it?:roll:

 

[Nick W]

Congratulations on posting an utter load of claptrap. You should be really proud. Not only have you managed to repeat yourself, you've managed to make yourself sound like a right idiot too!

I'm sorry to say that yes there are people who earn more by not working than they could if they did. Kudos to IDS for trying to change that. So, made up? I think not.

And I'm afraid I have every right to complain about those who choose not to work. For the main part, I do enjoy my job though - in what way does that prevent me from lambasting the terminally lazy?

And yes, working for a living really is stupid. A lifetime sat in front of an X Box is far more satisfying isn't it?

I apologise for any errors in my post, and the repetition you speak of. When I posted I was worn out from judging at an international university debating competition. I will assume that you found nothing wrong with anything I stated and knew full well you would have to admit there was no basis for what you posted if you answered the question. You therefore resorted to personal attack to disguise this, a practice not unheard of from railway staff.

I'll politely ignore your personal attacks and ask you two questions.

1. Who are these people who earn more money from you than not working, and can you provide any evidence to back up this claim?

2. (If what you claim is true) You claim that you are willing to work and receive less money than not working because a) you enjoy it and b) you get satisfaction from it. What right do you have to call someone who, a) doesn't enjoy working and b) doesn't get satisfaction from working, lazy if they choose not to work and earn more money as a result?

 

[Pumbaa]

So, just who are 'the poor' that those on the left wing of politics keep hyperventilating about?

People who through wretched intervention of others above them, and poor decisions made by those elected to represent them. People whose families were dealt a cruel hand in the 80s, and through successive generations have had a poor education, an upbringing revolving around scraping by and gone into jobs rather than careers, prevented from doing the latter by so many barriers to entry into education, further training and higher paid jobs.

Admittedly, there are those who chose not to work, and for whom benefits represent a disincentive to work. However things are never black and white, and the proportion you describe is really rather small. The couple next door to me for instance, have two children under 3. The male partner cares for his terminally ill parents during the day as he can't afford to put them into care, then works nights pulling pints and restacking shelves at Tesco. The mum helps at a nursery and hires out her cleaning skills in the neighbouring streets. They get by, and neither of them can do much at present to help their predicament. They receive some income from the state, but not much. Both of them are children of the 80s, with parents royally done over by the Govt and little done in the 90s to alleviate the issue.

One of New Labours most applaudable efforts was removing some of those barriers to Higher Education, especially for adults, and assisting those who want to move higher. It is sad that some of these barriers are to be returned.

If any Govt really cared about the 'poor', the most sensible thing to do would be to retain the inroads made into further education, provide social and economic mobility and ensure that the future generation skills are not last by implementing slow transition policies rather than the 'slash and burn' that we see now, as in the 80s.

 

[Ferret]

I apologise for any errors in my post, and the repetition you speak of. When I posted I was worn out from judging at an international university debating competition. I will assume that you found nothing wrong with anything I stated and knew full well you would have to admit there was no basis for what you posted if you answered the question. You therefore resorted to personal attack to disguise this, a practice not unheard of from railway staff.

I'll politely ignore your personal attacks and ask you two questions.

1. Who are these people who earn more money from you than not working, and can you provide any evidence to back up this claim?

2. (If what you claim is true) You claim that you are willing to work and receive less money than not working because a) you enjoy it and b) you get satisfaction from it. What right do you have to call someone who, a) doesn't enjoy working and b) doesn't get satisfaction from working, lazy if they choose not to work and earn more money as a result?

You resorted to the personal attacks in the first place - suggesting I was stupid. You're hardly in a position to take the moral high ground.:roll: Now, apologies for calling you a pillock, that was a tad harsh even if it was in response to your own rather rude posting.

1. Oh please. Have you read any newspapers over the last few years? From tabloids to broadsheets, there are a litany of examples.

2. So, you actually think people should be able to choose not to work and be kept by everyone else? Good grief! I'll call people like that lazy because that is what they are! Terribly sorry if that causes offence, but then, the truth does tend to hurt.

 

[Oswyntail]

Pumbaa,
There is a difference between being "poor" and "poorly educated". But, I would like to know what those blocks to education you speak of are that were removed by new labour and are now to be put back in place. I agree that education is the driver of social mobility, but I would also argue that some of the reforms that have been introduced over the last few decades (comprehensive education, GCSEs, university expansion) have all failed to achieve what they set out to do. In fact, they have largely achieved the opposite, by watering down the rigour of what was expected at certain levels so as to accommodate more aspirants. I am not calling for a system that throws kids on the scrap heap at 11, 16, or 18 (as the emotional response of those who support those reforms would have it). Rather that it is recognised that different types of education, to different levels, suit the vast range of differences in society - and that those types are provided well and as appropriate (this is what has not been done before). It is widely recognised that grammar schools were the most effective means of social mobility in the last century. Their replacements have been nowhere as good.
Back to poverty. There is no doubt that there are situations such as you describe, and how they are handled is the supreme test of a civilised community. However, there are also some payments made by government agencies that are not relieving poverty, but are maintaining current lifestyle levels. For instance, when I was signing on the dole a few years back, I was offered that the payments on a colour TV could be supported. No, colour TV is a luxury, not a necessity. And I know of several self-employed people who manipulate their apparent income so as to be able to claim maximum public assistance, apparently quite legally. I do not know how prevalent this sort of thing is. What i do know is that this manipulation, together with the offers of inappropriate assistance that are made, hide the real needs of those who are in genuine poverty and deserve our assistance.
Sorry to go on so long.

 

[Ferret]

People who through wretched intervention of others above them, and poor decisions made by those elected to represent them. People whose families were dealt a cruel hand in the 80s, and through successive generations have had a poor education, an upbringing revolving around scraping by and gone into jobs rather than careers, prevented from doing the latter by so many barriers to entry into education, further training and higher paid jobs.

Admittedly, there are those who chose not to work, and for whom benefits represent a disincentive to work. However things are never black and white, and the proportion you describe is really rather small. The couple next door to me for instance, have two children under 3. The male partner cares for his terminally ill parents during the day as he can't afford to put them into care, then works nights pulling pints and restacking shelves at Tesco. The mum helps at a nursery and hires out her cleaning skills in the neighbouring streets. They get by, and neither of them can do much at present to help their predicament. They receive some income from the state, but not much. Both of them are children of the 80s, with parents royally done over by the Govt and little done in the 90s to alleviate the issue.

One of New Labours most applaudable efforts was removing some of those barriers to Higher Education, especially for adults, and assisting those who want to move higher. It is sad that some of these barriers are to be returned.

If any Govt really cared about the 'poor', the most sensible thing to do would be to retain the inroads made into further education, provide social and economic mobility and ensure that the future generation skills are not last by implementing slow transition policies rather than the 'slash and burn' that we see now, as in the 80s.

Nice to see a well constructed post instead of the nonsense trotted out by Nick W. What's got my goat is that the term 'the poor' is a massive catch all, and it often strikes me that the Labour Party use it as a moral stick to beat the Coalition with rather than it having any real meaning. Of course, if Labour were that concerned about 'the poor', they wouldn't just condemn those people to a life on benefits just to keep them quiet.

And just how small a percentage of the unemployed is it who choose to not to work? I suspect there are a significant proportion. It cannot be right that a life on benefits pays more than getting a job whatever Nick W thinks. I don't agree with everything the coalition is doing, but if Duncan-Smith manages to sort out this bizarre situation, then he'll have done us all a great service.

 

[scotsman]

Wow! This isn't ignorant at all!

Am I the only one who is fed up of the term 'the poor'? Who are 'the poor'? Well, there's the terminally lazy, some of whom get far more (tax free) than I earn through getting off my arse and going to work at all hours of the day. I don't describe them as poor at all!

Well, there's those who have little or no qualifications and work in poorly paid jobs while trying to support a family.

Then, there's those who haven't been dealt a fair hand in life - those who have had no choice and had to go into work to support their family or themselves because of unforseen circumstances.

What about the people who've been made unemployed and are having to live off JSA? Especially those who were already on a low income?

Then, there's the unskilled migrants who have come here to scrounge off us working people, who I really couldn't give two hoots about.

From where exactly, those outside the EU are only allowed in if they are judged to be of benefit. You'll remember that many migrants from the EU actually left because the pay wasn't that good.

 

[Nick W]

You resorted to the personal attacks in the first place - suggesting I was stupid. You're hardly in a position to take the moral high ground.<a href="images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Rolling Eyes" smilieid="34" class="inlineimg" /> Now, apologies for calling you a pillock, that was a tad harsh even if it was in response to your own rather rude posting.

I never claimed the moral high ground, and I never called you stupid. I suggested it was more likely that your claim that there are people who work much less than you are paid more was void. I am deeply sorry if you thought I called you stupid and you had every right to complain if my post made it appear that way.<br />

1. Oh please. Have you read any newspapers over the last few years? From tabloids to broadsheets, there are a litany of examples.

Ok, so are we talking about asylum seekers who are not allowed to work or parents of young children living off child benefit?

2. So, you actually think people should be able to choose not to work and be kept by everyone else? Good grief! I'll call people like that lazy because that is what they are! Terribly sorry if that caused offense, but then, the truth does tend to hurt.

No I don't. Firstly, this is immaterial because there probably aren't people who get paid more than you to work much less. Secondly if there was a way they could, you couldn't call them lazy for seeking the path that makes more money. Thirdly, there are many reasons why a person might be out of work, other than laziness.


I would also be very careful calling anyone more educated than you a "pillock", "stupid", or indeed call the contents of their posts "nonsense" just because you don't agree with them.

 

[Ferret]

I never claimed the moral high ground, and I never called you stupid. I suggested it was more likely that your claim that there are people who work much less than you are paid more was void. I am deeply sorry if you thought I called you stupid and you had every right to complain if my post made it appear that way.<br />

Ok, so are we talking about asylum seekers who are not allowed to work or parents of young children living off child benefit?


No I don't. Firstly, this is immaterial because there probably aren't people who get paid more than you to work much less. Secondly if there was a way they could, you couldn't call them lazy for seeking the path that makes more money. Thirdly, there are many reasons why a person might be out of work, other than laziness.


I would also be very careful calling anyone more educated than you a "pillock", "stupid", or indeed call the contents of their posts "nonsense" just because you don't agree with them.

How do you know you're more educated than me?:roll: Honestly, you really do appear to be an obnoxious and conceited individual.

Now, yes there are people who earn more than me (I'm talking net rather than gross here) from just sitting at home counting their benefits. This is what's wrong with the system as it stands. I'm well aware there are many other reasons people can be out of work - no, it isn't just the lazy that claim benefits, but I'm afraid there are those that choose not to work. I'm afraid those are the ones that my ire is directed against.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, there's those who have little or no qualifications and work in poorly paid jobs while trying to support a family.

Then, there's those who haven't been dealt a fair hand in life - those who have had no choice and had to go into work to support their family or themselves because of unforseen circumstances.

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......

 

[Nick W]

How do you know you're more educated than me?:roll: Honestly, you really do appear to be an obnoxious and conceited individual.

I'm afraid your over-generalised perception of the world and your analytical style gives it away. I don't like to boast or come across as arrogant, hence I shall not post my credentials on this forum, however if you wish to exchange credentials over pm, I would be delighted to oblige. All I'm after is friendly intellectual discussion where one feels they can argue against a view and propose their own view without ad hominem or straw man attacks.

Now, yes there are people who earn more than me (I'm talking net rather than gross here) from just sitting at home counting their benefits. This is what's wrong with the system as it stands. I'm well aware there are many other reasons people can be out of work - no, it isn't just the lazy that claim benefits, but I'm afraid there are those that choose not to work. I'm afraid those are the ones that my ire is directed against.

Once again you have yet to give a better argument other than "there are people because there are". If benefits are provided by the state without a need to search for work (and I rather think the name JSA suggest that this one benefit isn't), individuals are legitimate in claiming these even if they're not working. You have no right to be angry unless those you call lazy are breaking the law. If you're not happy, you can vote accordingly at the next election or seek to enter politics!

Obviously I can see a merit to withdrawing benefits to those who don't seek work, providing they have alternative means of obtaining shelter, food and drink, ie that their human rights can be satisfied, and I would be delighted to discuss this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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......

Let's consider what our Government is, a collection of people who use means of force (ie law and order) to coerce the rest of the population. Without such coercion, a person could easily live without working, as a free wanderer, living off natural produce of the land as people once did. Since the state now prevents that, the state has the responsibility to provide food, drink and shelter to all its individuals. A convenient way to do this is benefits, though direct handouts would do. There should be no need to work to receive such benefits, though I recognise the vast majority of people will want to do so in order to be able to receive more than just the bare necessities of life as this is tantamount to slavery, which I'm sure you can agree is bad.

 

[Ferret]

I'm afraid your over-generalised perception of the world and your analytical style gives it away. I don't like to boast or come across as arrogant, hence I shall not post my credentials on this forum, however if you wish to exchange credentials over pm, I would be delighted to oblige. All I'm after is friendly intellectual discussion where one feels they can argue against a view and propose their own view without ad hominem or straw man attacks.

Ah, so it's acceptable to try and belittle somebody because you're involved in a discussion with them? Like I say, you're coming over as arrogant and conceited. What difference would your supposedly superior education have anyway?! Somehow your opinion carries more weight because of that does it?!:roll:

Once again you have yet to give a better argument other than "there are people because there are". If benefits are provided by the state without a need to search for work (and I rather think the name JSA suggest that this one benefit isn't), individuals are legitimate in claiming these even if they're not working. You have no right to be angry unless those you call lazy are breaking the law. If you're not happy, you can vote accordingly at the next election or seek to enter politics!

I saw a very wise signature line on another forum recently. It reminded us that slavery was once legal. Doesn't make it right though does it?

Now, tell me - have you read *any* newspapers for the last 5 years Nick? Hell, even the upmarket ones report on the section of society who are better off at home than in work - trying to pretend that this section of society doesn't exist is a position that lacks any credibility whatsoever.

Obviously I can see a merit to withdrawing benefits to those who don't seek work, providing they have alternative means of obtaining shelter, food and drink, ie that their human rights can be satisfied, and I would be delighted to discuss this.

Well, ok - let's hear your thoughts on this. My personal thoughts are that withdrawing benefits totally would never work - it might push your crime rates up, but that's about it.

Let's consider what our Government is, a collection of people who use means of force (ie law and order) to coerce the rest of the population. Without such coercion, a person could easily live without working, as a free wanderer, living off natural produce of the land as people once did. Since the state now prevents that, the state has the responsibility to provide food, drink and shelter to all its individuals. A convenient way to do this is benefits, though direct handouts would do. There should be no need to work to receive such benefits, though I recognise the vast majority of people will want to do so in order to be able to receive more than just the bare necessities of life as this is tantamount to slavery, which I'm sure you can agree is bad.

There has to be an element of self help though. Why is it right that people expect everything to be handed to them on a plate by the State? Sure, the State has a responsibility to help the genuinely vulnerable in society, but what about those who have no interest in putting anything into the system - those that are just intent on taking?

 

[Oswyntail]

....
Let's consider what our Government is, a collection of people who use means of force (ie law and order) to coerce the rest of the population. Without such coercion, a person could easily live without working, as a free wanderer, living off natural produce of the land as people once did. Since the state now prevents that, the state has the responsibility to provide food, drink and shelter to all its individuals. A convenient way to do this is benefits, though direct handouts would do. There should be no need to work to receive such benefits, though I recognise the vast majority of people will want to do so in order to be able to receive more than just the bare necessities of life as this is tantamount to slavery, which I'm sure you can agree is bad.

The government is surely only there by the will of the people, who have chosen (tacitly perhaps, but the majority would agree) to live by the rule of law rather than anarchy. The Government does not impose or coerce. It is the general populace who have decided this is the best way, so your responsibility that you place on the state is not there. The responsibility lies with the general community, and the conventional way the community discharges that responsibility is by expecting the majority to work for support (through wages), while providing a safety net for those who can't (through benefits). Your analysis of the social contract is somewhat discredited, I feel.

 

[Donny Dave]

I never claimed the moral high ground, and I never called you stupid. I suggested it was more likely that your claim that there are people who work much less than you are paid more was void. I am deeply sorry if you thought I called you stupid and you had every right to complain if my post made it appear that way.

I would also be very careful calling anyone more educated than you a "pillock", "stupid", or indeed call the contents of their posts "nonsense" just because you don't agree with them.

I'm afraid your over-generalised perception of the world and your analytical style gives it away. I don't like to boast or come across as arrogant, hence I shall not post my credentials on this forum, however if you wish to exchange credentials over pm, I would be delighted to oblige. All I'm after is friendly intellectual discussion where one feels they can argue against a view and propose their own view without ad hominem or straw man attacks.

Either:
a) You are very stupid and are working eveb when you could earn more for working less.
b) You enjoy working, even if it means you earn less than you could, in which case you have no right to complain about those who choose not work.
c) You completely made that up. (most likely)
Which one is it?

I apologise for any errors in my post, and the repetition you speak of. When I posted I was worn out from judging at an international university debating competition. I will assume that you found nothing wrong with anything I stated and knew full well you would have to admit there was no basis for what you posted if you answered the question. You therefore resorted to personal attack to disguise this, a practice not unheard of from railway staff.

I'll politely ignore your personal attacks and ask you two questions.

1. Who are these people who earn more money from you than not working, and can you provide any evidence to back up this claim?

Ok, Where do I start? First off, I'll deal with the question shortly, but first the parts I've highlighted ....

After re-reading the whole topic, the only person I can see directing person insults (both directly and hinted at) is you! From my experience on these forums, you come across as one of the most conceited and arrogant people around, who only wants to know what you say, and ignore everyone else.

While I haven't (knowingly) met Ferret, and therefore can't speak for him, I suspect that both our views are from life experience, and not some debating hall and a random university.

Oh, Railway Staff are not the only people who use personal insults, anyone anywhere can use them ....

Ok, so are we talking about asylum seekers who are not allowed to work or parents of young children living off child benefit?

Let me tell you a story Nick .....

Once upon a time, there was a 30 year old woman. She has 3 children by 3 different fathers, but is currently engaged to the father of the 3rd child. She has never done a days work in her life, but she enjoys a better lifestyle than I do, despite me working 40.175 hours a week (13 week average). This woman (and her partner) between them claim and get the following ....

Job Seekers Allowance (him)
Income Support (her)
Child Benefit (joint, for 3 children)
Child Tax Credit (joint)
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit
Plus a couple of others that I can't remember off the top of my head.

None of that is bull****, as I happen to know that family ....

 

[Pumbaa]

Pumbaa,
There is a difference between being "poor" and "poorly educated". But, I would like to know what those blocks to education you speak of are that were removed by new labour and are now to be put back in place. I am not calling for a system that throws kids on the scrap heap at 11, 16, or 18 (as the emotional response of those who support those reforms would have it). Rather that it is recognised that different types of education, to different levels, suit the vast range of differences in society - and that those types are provided well and as appropriate (this is what has not been done before). It is widely recognised that grammar schools were the most effective means of social mobility in the last century. Their replacements have been nowhere as good.

Absolutely. You could argue that the two are intrinsically linked. One of the biggest blocks to further education, especially for mature students, was funding and state support. Between 2002 - 2007, there was over 400% (from ONS) increase in mature students entering foundation years for new degrees, college courses, NVQs and other qualification schemes. Two biggest factors 1) making cheap loans and grants available to mature students who showed they were willing to go back to learn 2) provision of subsidised childcare, as a growing proportion are single parents or already have a family. Both of these are being removed by coalition, childcare subsidy is scrapped and the increased costs at market rate loans and increased costs passed onto colleges and Universities will push people back out of the system.

Grammar schools are interesting. I would argue otherwise from personal experience. Having lived in areas of both, lived with ex-grammar school students, and as an advocate of single tiered secondary education, grammar schools act as barrier to social mobility; they discriminate against postcodes and can tailor entry exams to the needs of 'good' local primary schools and go against 'bad' primary schools. Obviously its not written down, but in Kent for example, the pooling of primary schools around Bromley (a good mix of 'good' and 'bad' schools) is the same, year in and out. The kids who live on the council estate go to the rougher school, don't get admitted to the Grammar, attend the comp down the road and repeat.

With decent funding, targeted improvements and above all investment in new buildings and facilities and teacher training, there is no reason why comprehensives cannot be better (in both skewed league table terms and in inferred input into society) than grammars. West Herts for example, four comps within 2 miles of each other outstrip the local private schools, and the Grammar over the border in Bucks.

Back to poverty. There is no doubt that there are situations such as you describe, and how they are handled is the supreme test of a civilised community. However, there are also some payments made by government agencies that are not relieving poverty, but are maintaining current lifestyle levels. For instance, when I was signing on the dole a few years back, I was offered that the payments on a colour TV could be supported. No, colour TV is a luxury, not a necessity. And I know of several self-employed people who manipulate their apparent income so as to be able to claim maximum public assistance, apparently quite legally. I do not know how prevalent this sort of thing is. What i do know is that this manipulation, together with the offers of inappropriate assistance that are made, hide the real needs of those who are in genuine poverty and deserve our assistance.
Sorry to go on so long.

Fluid problem - whats the acceptable level of living and to what standard does the state provide to? And one that will never satisfactorily be resolved in my opinion. Manipulation I detest, and I feel a more stringent system should be put in place with frequent reviews and ongoing corrections as needed.

And no problem, I have too! But that's what a forum is for - the sharing and airing of views and thoughts!

Nice to see a well constructed post instead of the nonsense trotted out by Nick W. What's got my goat is that the term 'the poor' is a massive catch all, and it often strikes me that the Labour Party use it as a moral stick to beat the Coalition with rather than it having any real meaning. Of course, if Labour were that concerned about 'the poor', they wouldn't just condemn those people to a life on benefits just to keep them quiet.

And just how small a percentage of the unemployed is it who choose to not to work? I suspect there are a significant proportion. It cannot be right that a life on benefits pays more than getting a job whatever Nick W thinks. I don't agree with everything the coalition is doing, but if Duncan-Smith manages to sort out this bizarre situation, then he'll have done us all a great service.

With thanks Ferret.

I don't think it is in fairness. There are still huge disparities in society which we see every day but don't think anything of it. There is still an inherent class system that runs throughout the country, which as much as people from the left and right will jump to disagree with, still exists. Labour, in my opinion, did a lot of good that helped certain sectors but caused pain in others. An increase in disability allowance and giving disadvantaged people better access to funds is a good thing surely, despite it leading to abuse from others.

The benefit system needs to be rationalised yes, but not reformed. Needs testing is an expensive and sometimes worthless exercise, and due to the constant change in society requires constant tweaking. Benefits should be universal and available to all, they are provided by the state as private sector will not step in in many cases. If fairness and equality is what we're all after, then everyone should be entitled to what the state is willing to give.

A well known political commentator made a good remark on question time the other week; as a well-off 60yr old, she's entitled to the free bus pass but she neither requires nor desires it. She can still drive, walk and pay for her own public transport. In these cases, you should be able to decline them respectfully, but it would not be fair of the Govt to offer free travel to the worst off in society (no pension, low income, frequent need to travel) and then not to people such as Bruce Forsyth.

Tangent alert - that's what gets my goat most about this Govt. They harp on about the 'fairness' and 'equality' of society, being pushed in the ribs mainly by Lib Dems (thankfully!) But many of their decisions I feel are misguided and will hurt many, benefit the few but privileged and make the UK worse off.

 

[Ferret]

The benefit system needs to be rationalised yes, but not reformed. Needs testing is an expensive and sometimes worthless exercise, and due to the constant change in society requires constant tweaking. Benefits should be universal and available to all, they are provided by the state as private sector will not step in in many cases. If fairness and equality is what we're all after, then everyone should be entitled to what the state is willing to give.

A well known political commentator made a good remark on question time the other week; as a well-off 60yr old, she's entitled to the free bus pass but she neither requires nor desires it. She can still drive, walk and pay for her own public transport. In these cases, you should be able to decline them respectfully, but it would not be fair of the Govt to offer free travel to the worst off in society (no pension, low income, frequent need to travel) and then not to people such as Bruce Forsyth.

I agree with much of that. Simplification of the benefits system would be good - there seems to be a benefit for this, that and the other! Surely one universal benefit is better, as you'd hope that wouldn't cost so much to administrate! I still think some reform is necessary though - it should never pay more to sit at home rather than work.

 

[Nick W]

Ah, so it's acceptable to try and belittle somebody because you're involved in a discussion with them?

I must apologise if you felt belittled. I will admit to being quite upfront with my views in both presenting them and pointing out flaws with the views of others. I delight when people equally present their views and point out the flaws in my views, so long as their views are either well supported or supported on demand.

Like I say, you're coming over as arrogant and conceited. What difference would your supposedly superior education have anyway?! Somehow your opinion carries more weight because of that does it?!:roll:

I didn't wish to come across that way, but when called "stupid", I think it is fair for me to refute such a claim. Education obviously doesn't mean my opinion carries more weight outside my area of specialisation. It simply means that I'm more likely to offer sounder analysis.

I saw a very wise signature line on another forum recently. It reminded us that slavery was once legal. Doesn't make it right though does it?

Absolutely not, but if slavery were made illegal tomorrow you would have no right to be angry with the people who purchased slaves. You may well be annoyed with the general public for voting in a party which supported slavery though - I know I would be.

Now, tell me - have you read *any* newspapers for the last 5 years Nick? Hell, even the upmarket ones report on the section of society who are better off at home than in work - trying to pretend that this section of society doesn't exist is a position that lacks any credibility whatsoever.

I've heard marginal tax rates as high as 90% mentioned, but never higher than 100%.

Well, ok - let's hear your thoughts on this. My personal thoughts are that withdrawing benefits totally would never work - it might push your crime rates up, but that's about it.

Excellent point - I didn't think of crime, and I dare say that's a very good point. Here, we get beggars who are actually on JSA but either aren't very good at budgeting or the money isn't simply enough, but I suspect that if people didn't help them out they'd turn to crime. If approached while on my way to Sainsburies I am more than happy to buy them a sandwich.

I think I'd argue more that the state has a duty to provide food, drink, clothes and shelter for people under international law, and because it coerces people as I mentioned before. Since it's probably cheaper to give people money which they can spend on these services, than to provide those services directly, I think it's right to give such benefits.

There has to be an element of self help though. Why is it right that people expect everything to be handed to them on a plate by the State? Sure, the State has a responsibility to help the genuinely vulnerable in society, but what about those who have no interest in putting anything into the system - those that are just intent on taking?

I think there is a merit to withdrawing services from people who could help themselves but choose not to. However, lives would almost certainly be lost as a result of doing so. We put a very high value on life (eg road/rail safety improvements and NHS treatments), and it is unlikely that the money saved from withdrawing benefits would exceed even the lowest of these arbitrary values.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The government is surely only there by the will of the people, who have chosen (tacitly perhaps, but the majority would agree) to live by the rule of law rather than anarchy. The Government does not impose or coerce. It is the general populace who have decided this is the best way, so your responsibility that you place on the state is not there. The responsibility lies with the general community, and the conventional way the community discharges that responsibility is by expecting the majority to work for support (through wages), while providing a safety net for those who can't (through benefits). Your analysis of the social contract is somewhat discredited, I feel.

You are absolutely right that the Government has been chosen by the majority, in so far as voting system allows. The Government however does coerce, for example, it forces me to pay taxes, prevents me from walking on certain land, restricts which substances I can and cannot take and how many wives I can have. You don't realise the coercion because you've never been freer. (I am not an anarchist and would probably argue for more state control and regulation that we have now.)

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?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok, Where do I start? First off, I'll deal with the question shortly, but first the parts I've highlighted ....

After re-reading the whole topic, the only person I can see directing person insults (both directly and hinted at) is you! From my experience on these forums, you come across as one of the most conceited and arrogant people around, who only wants to know what you say, and ignore everyone else.

Fair enough, you're entitled to your views.

While I haven't (knowingly) met Ferret, and therefore can't speak for him, I suspect that both our views are from life experience, and not some debating hall and a random university.

That would seriously weaken your views and your life experience is likely to give you a distorted view in that, a) you are more likely to remember the externalities then the general picture and b) you will have seen limited perspective.

Oh, Railway Staff are not the only people who use personal insults, anyone anywhere can use them ....

It goes without saying.

Let me tell you a story Nick .....

Once upon a time, there was a 30 year old woman. She has 3 children by 3 different fathers, but is currently engaged to the father of the 3rd child. She has never done a days work in her life, but she enjoys a better lifestyle than I do, despite me working 40.175 hours a week (13 week average). This woman (and her partner) between them claim and get the following ....

Job Seekers Allowance (him)
Income Support (her)
Child Benefit (joint, for 3 children)
Child Tax Credit (joint)
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit
Plus a couple of others that I can't remember off the top of my head.

None of that is bull****, as I happen to know that family ....

Would you really swap your lifestyle for hers? It can't be easy knowing you've let down or been let down by 3 partners and there must be a tremendousness feeling of guilt (rightly or wrongly) in the 3 children will be raised under broken marriages. I can't imagine the benefits are great enough to allow her to raise the children as she sees fit, either and they will be deprived relative to other children. Please give her my support, and encourage her to write to her MP if she doesn't think the benefits are enough to provide adequately for the children.

Out of interest, how much of the benefits apart from JSA would actually be lost if she was to take up a full-time minimum wage job?

 

[Greenback]

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.

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.

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?

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.