Next Leader of the Opposition

[Strokes]

And I'm sure you'd also like the far greater abuse by the wealthy to be sorted out too, but I don't see you fighting for that. 

 

No fit able bodied man or woman of working age should not be working - Can we agree on that?

 

That includes the rich as well as the poor.

 

Should a man live of the back of other people's work as the whites did on their black slaves? Of course you'll probably not see it like that, perhaps you'll argue it's because of higher intelligence or that great granddaddy did the work so the following generations can be exempt and live the life of lazy benfit claimers (except so much better).

 

Do you think a person's genetic makeup - whether that be intelligence, physique, looks or skin colour should mean that some are doomed to miserable poor lives whilst others can make merry? And we shouldn't intervene.

 

Damn, I hope your kids (or your kids kids) are healthy, intelligent and hard working as they grow up.

No I'm not fighting for greater abuse by the wealthy and nor will I, as it's a completely different issue.

I disagree that no fit able man or women should not be working, it's completely up to them, so long as they can afford to make that choice.

As for the rest of this, yeah you've pretty much called me out. No I don't think we should intervene. We aren't all born equal in my opinion, unfortunately and we never will be. I work damn hard to make sure my children do not have any disadvantages and if possible some advantages. If I could give them more I would.

You think you are fighting for utopia, all you are fighting for is a shit world for everyone.

[Molly]

No I'm not fighting for greater abuse by the wealthy and nor will I, as it's a completely different issue.

I disagree that no fit able man or women should not be working, it's completely up to them, so long as they can afford to make that choice.

As for the rest of this, yeah you've pretty much called me out. No I don't think we should intervene. We aren't all born equal in my opinion, unfortunately and we never will be. I work damn hard to make sure my children do not have any disadvantages and if possible some advantages. If I could give them more I would.

You think you are fighting for utopia, all you are fighting for is a shit world for everyone.

 

That's your stance/belief and I respect that, but I don't have to agree with it do I?

 

I can't agree that because of an accident of birth - whether that is because your family has money or better genes that those without them and therefore without hope should be treated as inferior human beings and be expected to live a whole life as that.

 

Your children are fortunate - that is all - other children are born to parents whose genetic material means that they are not equipped to earn a decent living or maybe they just will be born into circumstances that don't allow them to get to the same position as your children through lack of life paths.

 

You say you think I'm "fighting for a utopia" but you are too - Your utopia just happens to be a utopia of inequality and the history of man has shown that is " a shit world" for most but not everyone.

[Molly]

You make it so that working is a much better prospect than living on benefits.

 

Please Webbo, you are well read in politics and you have a very fixed stance. Stop avoiding the question and say how YOU would make "working a much better prospect than living on benefits."

 

It's as simple a question as the statement you made.

 

As for your earlier comment of "forcing people to work" 

 

I'd still like to know how you're going to do that too.

 

I guess you'll tell me after you force the Israelis and the Palestinians to immediate love and peace.

[Guest Bilo]

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/558290fc01925b0184000001/attachments/original/1438791117/ANDY_BURNHAM_MANIFESTO.pdf?1438791117

 

Andy Burnham's new manifesto released this morning. How anybody could be so thick and narrow-minded as to label him a Tory is literally beyond me, but some have done exactly that....

That stupidity aside, I don't think there's much to disagree with here and it's all a heck of a lot more sensible, workable and applicable than the bizarre and faddish fandom known as Corbynmania. He's the only realistic proposition of the four in my view.

[Buce]

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/558290fc01925b0184000001/attachments/original/1438791117/ANDY_BURNHAM_MANIFESTO.pdf?1438791117

Andy Burnham's new manifesto released this morning. How anybody could be so thick and narrow-minded as to label him a Tory is literally beyond me, but some have done exactly that....

That stupidity aside, I don't think there's much to disagree with here and it's all a heck of a lot more sensible, workable and applicable than the bizarre and faddish fandom known as Corbynmania. He's the only realistic proposition of the four in my view.

I'm pleasantly surprised by this.

I'm an old-school socialist, and I registered with the party to vote for Corbyn, but this has given me food for thought. I'd have liked to have seen a commitment to re-nationalize the utility companies, but it does tick a lot of boxes for me.

[Rincewind]

So still evading the question.

 

I don't mind you calling me conceited and thick. That may be true.

 

Just answer the question.

 

How are YOU going to force people to work?

 

Answer the question.

Some good posts from all angles.

On the above point There are two ways of looking at it. I would not say making going to work more attractive  is 'forcing' a person. It is simply giving them a better choice, incentive and hope for their future. Forcing would be removing the majority of support and putting them on schemes where they are obliged to work in areas they are not suited for only to be replaced after three months. Forcing is having to sign up for agencies where they may be offered 4 or 5 hours a week if they sit by a phone all day and receive minimum wage. If there is less incentive financially 'forcing' will not change things. If a person is told often enough that they are worthless they may come to believe it.

There are of course exceptions. One example is my elder brother. We were brought up on a council estate and he was lucky and intellegent to attend Wygeston Grammar. He always said he did not want to end up like other kids on the estate. Dead end jobs or worse  so he put 100% effort in everything that he did and eventually had his own Hotel. Although he wanted to leave the running of it to others so he could relax more and have a better social life.

I was not so ambitious and content to be a lacky. You cant help your nature.

Taking or reducing working tax credits or child benefits is not an incentive to work especially if a person has young children and have child care to pay for. The choice for many is struggle in work or struggle out of work but with the latter you have more free time.

[Webbo]

Please Webbo, you are well read in politics and you have a very fixed stance. Stop avoiding the question and say how YOU would make "working a much better prospect than living on benefits."

 

It's as simple a question as the statement you made.

 

As for your earlier comment of "forcing people to work" 

 

I'd still like to know how you're going to do that too.

 

I guess you'll tell me after you force the Israelis and the Palestinians to immediate love and peace.

I thought I'd already answered this but if you must;

 

You make life on benefit less comfortable, you reduce benefits, make people attend interviews, make an effort to help people with problems find work. Just your basic carrot and stick approach. It's not rocket science.

[Claridge]

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/558290fc01925b0184000001/attachments/original/1438791117/ANDY_BURNHAM_MANIFESTO.pdf?1438791117

 

Andy Burnham's new manifesto released this morning. How anybody could be so thick and narrow-minded as to label him a Tory is literally beyond me, but some have done exactly that....

That stupidity aside, I don't think there's much to disagree with here and it's all a heck of a lot more sensible, workable and applicable than the bizarre and faddish fandom known as Corbynmania. He's the only realistic proposition of the four in my view.

In modern politics,someone as dull as Andy Burnham will never be elected as prime minister

[Frank to be]

Benefits have been cut to the point where people are having to use food banks and we still have significant unemployment. Technology is rapidly changing the demand profile for jobs and that will inevitably lead to hard working people losing their jobs and not having the skills to find a new one. This could affect any of us as some point. You never know when a technological advancement may come along and wipe out the demand for your skills.

Then there's personal problems, illnesses and injuries that we're all susceptible to. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to be able to swerve all of these issues and never find themselves in a position where getting work is difficult. It's a problem largely of our own creation as we strive for 'progess' (aka higher profits for businesses) at the expense of our own ability to maintain a secure standard of living. We're so focused on getting supposedly better products and services at lower prices that we're forgetting to consider our own well being.

This is a bad enough situation already without then adding to it by vilifying it's victims. Perhaps it's time we started to view people as people instead of economic units.

[Buce]

In modern politics,someone as dull as Andy Burnham will never be elected as prime minister

Dave 'Charisma' Cameron seemed to manage it.

[Molly]

I thought I'd already answered this but if you must;

 

You make life on benefit less comfortable, you reduce benefits, make people attend interviews, make an effort to help people with problems find work. Just your basic carrot and stick approach. It's not rocket science.

 

But that's what they've been doing for years. It clearly hasn't worked.

 

How "uncomfortable" do you think you need to make it to get people to work?

[Molly]

Benefits have been cut to the point where people are having to use food banks and we still have significant unemployment. Technology is rapidly changing the demand profile for jobs and that will inevitably lead to hard working people losing their jobs and not having the skills to find a new one. This could affect any of us as some point. You never know when a technological advancement may come along and wipe out the demand for your skills.

Then there's personal problems, illnesses and injuries that we're all susceptible to. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to be able to swerve all of these issues and never find themselves in a position where getting work is difficult. It's a problem largely of our own creation as we strive for 'progess' (aka higher profits for businesses) at the expense of our own ability to maintain a secure standard of living. We're so focused on getting supposedly better products and services at lower prices that we're forgetting to consider our own well being.

This is a bad enough situation already without then adding to it by vilifying it's victims. Perhaps it's time we started to view people as people instead of economic units.

 

What do Stokes and Webbo etc... have to say to this particular comment?

[Webbo]

But that's what they've been doing for years. It clearly hasn't worked.

 

How "uncomfortable" do you think you need to make it to get people to work?

If you look at this graph unemployment has fallen considerable since 2010.

What do Stokes and Webbo etc... have to say to this particular comment?

Typical emotive bollox that exaggerates the problem but doesn't give any solutions.

[Rincewind]

There were also 760k sanctions which does not count as unemployment.

It all depends on how the figures are presented. The government (whoever are in power) are hardly going to present figures which puts them in a bad light.

[Webbo]

There were also 760k sanctions which does not count as unemployment.

It all depends on how the figures are presented. The government (whoever are in power) are hardly going to present figures which puts them in a bad light.

The graph clearly show the figures going up as well as down.

[Dr The Singh]

The graph clearly show the figures going up as well as down.

Rincy's graph only shows it going up in a Tory government

[Buce]

If you look at this graph unemployment has fallen considerably since 2010...

And child poverty has increased.

[Molly]

If you look at this graph unemployment has fallen considerable since 2010.

Typical emotive bollox that exaggerates the problem but doesn't give any solutions.

 

So no sign of full employment then.

And child poverty has increased.

 

I don't think he cares.

[inckley fox]

I thought I'd already answered this but if you must;

 

You make life on benefit less comfortable, you reduce benefits, make people attend interviews, make an effort to help people with problems find work. Just your basic carrot and stick approach. It's not rocket science.

 

There's a lot of 'making' going on here. What if people refuse to co-operate? We can't starve them or allow children to grow up in abject poverty if they do. So do we invest hugely in social care in order to protect these children? Go for the Blair approach of 'intervening as early as possible - at birth, or possible before that' (I think were his words)? Do we pump huge amounts of money into rehabilitation, shorten jail terms, teach more people trades on the inside so that they don't fall straight into the benefits system on the outside?

 

Of course we must remember that a great many on benefits fully deserve what they receive from the state, and the rest are no less deserving of their money than many well-moneyed others. A person's wealth doesn't tally with their value to society - many of the most successful headmasters, for instance, earn significantly less than 100K of taxpayers' money whereas Gary Lineker earns, well, whatever he earns from the BBC for talking about football once a week. And what has anybody anywhere ever done to earn their inherited wealth? Even Thatcher acknowledged this and hugely increased inheritance tax - in fact she came up with the modern day inheritance tax bill. Why don't we make earning your own fortune more attractive than inheriting your dad's?

 

So I'd agree that we should make work more attractive than welfare, but the reasons for doing it and the logistics of going about it are, I think, a lot more complex than you suggest. I don't think it's straightforwardly a case of the abject poor needing to roll their sleeves up and get back to work, so they can earn their cash like the rest of us do.

[Webbo]

So no sign of full employment then.

 

No but it's clearly falling  so perhaps the measures are working?

 

 

I don't think he cares.

Ouch, that hurt.

 

Actually child poverty hasn't increased, at worst it's stayed the same,

 

I don't think poverty is the right word to use. When the worse problem facing the poor is obesity it tells me things aren't that bad.

[inckley fox]

 

I don't think poverty is the right word to use. When the worse problem facing the poor is obesity it tells me things aren't that bad.

 

The worst problem facing the poor is obesity! I love that. It'd make a fantastic exam question. 'The worst problem facing the poor in 2015 is obesity. Discuss.'

 

Personally I'd say the worst problem facing the poor is that they are destined to remain poor and have kids who remain poor. No government, not Tory, Labour or Liberal, has ever done a particularly good job of getting round that one.

[Webbo]

 

 

Personally I'd say the worst problem facing the poor is that they are destined to remain poor and have kids who remain poor. No government, not Tory, Labour or Liberal, has ever done a particularly good job of getting round that one.

Some will , some won't. We're all individuals. Govts can't change people's personalities.

 

 

Edit; I actually meant to say one of the the worse problems facing the poor. My bad.

[Molly]

There's a lot of 'making' going on here. What if people refuse to co-operate? We can't starve them or allow children to grow up in abject poverty if they do. So do we invest hugely in social care in order to protect these children? Go for the Blair approach of 'intervening as early as possible - at birth, or possible before that' (I think were his words)? Do we pump huge amounts of money into rehabilitation, shorten jail terms, teach more people trades on the inside so that they don't fall straight into the benefits system on the outside?

 

Of course we must remember that a great many on benefits fully deserve what they receive from the state, and the rest are no less deserving of their money than many well-moneyed others. A person's wealth doesn't tally with their value to society - many of the most successful headmasters, for instance, earn significantly less than 100K of taxpayers' money whereas Gary Lineker earns, well, whatever he earns from the BBC for talking about football once a week. And what has anybody anywhere ever done to earn their inherited wealth? Even Thatcher acknowledged this and hugely increased inheritance tax - in fact she came up with the modern day inheritance tax bill. Why don't we make earning your own fortune more attractive than inheriting your dad's?

 

So I'd agree that we should make work more attractive than welfare, but the reasons for doing it and the logistics of going about it are, I think, a lot more complex than you suggest. I don't think it's straightforwardly a case of the abject poor needing to roll their sleeves up and get back to work, so they can earn their cash like the rest of us do.

 

Thanks for saying some of what I was trying to say more succinctly and elegantly.

[Molly]

Some will , some won't. We're all individuals. Govts can't change people's personalities.

 

 

I don't know what you mean. Do you?

[Webbo]

There's a lot of 'making' going on here. What if people refuse to co-operate? We can't starve them or allow children to grow up in abject poverty if they do. So do we invest hugely in social care in order to protect these children? Go for the Blair approach of 'intervening as early as possible - at birth, or possible before that' (I think were his words)? Do we pump huge amounts of money into rehabilitation, shorten jail terms, teach more people trades on the inside so that they don't fall straight into the benefits system on the outside?

 

Of course we must remember that a great many on benefits fully deserve what they receive from the state, and the rest are no less deserving of their money than many well-moneyed others. A person's wealth doesn't tally with their value to society - many of the most successful headmasters, for instance, earn significantly less than 100K of taxpayers' money whereas Gary Lineker earns, well, whatever he earns from the BBC for talking about football once a week. And what has anybody anywhere ever done to earn their inherited wealth? Even Thatcher acknowledged this and hugely increased inheritance tax - in fact she came up with the modern day inheritance tax bill. Why don't we make earning your own fortune more attractive than inheriting your dad's?

 

So I'd agree that we should make work more attractive than welfare, but the reasons for doing it and the logistics of going about it are, I think, a lot more complex than you suggest. I don't think it's straightforwardly a case of the abject poor needing to roll their sleeves up and get back to work, so they can earn their cash like the rest of us do.

I missed this earlier. I never it was going to be easy, there'll be hardships along the way. Some people are beyond help and there's nothing you can do about that. But surely it's better to try? The welfare system as it was, was an expensive waste of human life, perpetuating a soul destroying existence while bankrupting the country. Carrying on as we were was not an option.

I don't know what you mean. Do you?

Do you mind if I ask how old you are?