Soft Touch Britain

[leicsmac]

Anyway, I'm fed up having this discussion. Both bankers and scroungers are bad.

Bankers - greedy & stupidly high level opinion of own entitlement.

Scroungers - lazy & stupidly high level opinion of own entitlement.

We can't do an awful lot about the former, but we could make life less comfortable for the latter and make a real difference between the lifestyle available on benefits and the lifestyle available working on min wage.

I agree with this.

Sorry about the last post - I hadn't eaten and low blood sugar made me want to direct anger at something.

I do wish that some of the individuals mainly responsible for the economic situation we find ourselves in had been taken to account for it, though.

That's pretty much it.

The defence of it by some and the idea we 'leave them to get on' it just because the people spouting that realise they are the voting core for their warped political views is a bigger one mind.

Care to elaborate?

[The People's Hero]

Sorry about the last post - I hadn't eaten and low blood sugar made me want to direct anger at something.

Don't worry - I'm constantly grumpy.

Probably not helped by the fact I'm dieting.

[MooseBreath]

I agree with this.

Sorry about the last post - I hadn't eaten and low blood sugar made me want to direct anger at something.

I do wish that some of the individuals mainly responsible for the economic situation we find ourselves in had been taken to account for it, though.

The last Labour government? Their reckless overspending is the reason we are having to use austerity measures. Not really anything to do with the bankers. That was a separate issue.

[leicsmac]

The last Labour government? Their reckless overspending is the reason we are having to use austerity measures. Not really anything to do with the bankers. That was a separate issue.

I think the bankers in the US (and by extension over here) caused a large worldwide depression through taking ridiculous risks on sub-prime mortgages. And yes, overspending by the last Government exacerbated that effect and as a result this Government thinks the best way to recover economically is to take austerity measures. Personally I think people should be encouraged to try to keep the economy flowing and businesses (and jobs) afloat by spending and keeping the money circulating rather than saving and letting it keep stagnating, but that's purely my opinion. I don't profess to be an economics expert, and even at the expert level there seems to be 10 different 'right' ways to do things.

But it was the bad decisions made by a few powerful groups of individuals that started all of this off (who of course have never been identified, let alone brought to account). Mis-spending by Government has just added to it.

[BoneDog]

Bankers - greedy & stupidly high level opinion of own entitlement.

Scroungers - lazy & stupidly high level opinion of own entitlement.

We can't do an awful lot about the former, but we could make life less comfortable for the latter and make a real difference between the lifestyle available on benefits and the lifestyle available working on min wage.

I'm pretty sure we could do quite a bit about the former if people got as upset about those folk's deeds as they do about the 'scroungers'.

If only people also got as upset about the massive company bosses who get away with not paying hundreds of millions in taxes too. Perhaps we could get something done about that if they did. But no, it seems that the only folk who will suffer in the future will be the very poorest. They're in for a rough ride, as many people are now calling for 'scroungers lifestyles to be made harder'. I'm certain that this kind of reaction is a manufactured one. Classic divide and conquer.

Do people think that if we start to make life harder for others, then the government will start to lower the rest of our taxes or something?! Doesn't sound very realistic to me. All that will happen once we make people even poorer is we will end up with bigger ghettos, more crime, less money and mo' problems. Then it'll be on to the next stage.

What percentage of people on benefits would folk say are true scroungers? I'd say probably around 5%, but I expect many to say a higher number than that.

There are some awful things that can happen to cause a person to have to go on benefits. God help some of us if any of them happen to us, because the way things are going nobody else will. This might seem a little ott but it's the way I see it.

[The People's Hero]

Do people think that if we start to make life harder for others, then the government will start to lower the rest of our taxes or something?! Doesn't sound very realistic to me.

No, I don't think that, but I believe in a meritocracy whereby those who contribute most, reap the most benefit. There should be a welfare state but it should not aim to put those who CHOSE not to work on the same level as those who do work.

Making life LESS comfortable for those on benefits SHOULD encourage more people to actively seek employment.

Similarly, I believe prisons should be less cushy and comfortable, but I expect this is impeding somebody's inalienable human rights. Who cares if it might work? Might save money? Might prevent reoffending? Sod those trifling issues - its all about human rights!

Your point about those avoiding tax - I absolutely agree, its bad, but given the opportunity, many people would do it, I suspect. The system needs to be improved but the problem is the advisors to those avoiding the tax are always a step ahead than those paid to detect and close loopholes etc.

[leicsmac]

No, I don't think that, but I believe in a meritocracy whereby those who contribute most, reap the most benefit. There should be a welfare state but it should not aim to put those who CHOSE not to work on the same level as those who do work.

Making life LESS comfortable for those on benefits SHOULD encourage more people to actively seek employment.

Similarly, I believe prisons should be less cushy and comfortable, but I expect this is impeding somebody's inalienable human rights. Who cares if it might work? Might save money? Might prevent reoffending? Sod those trifling issues - its all about human rights!

Your point about those avoiding tax - I absolutely agree, its bad, but given the opportunity, many people would do it, I suspect. The system needs to be improved but the problem is the advisors to those avoiding the tax are always a step ahead than those paid to detect and close loopholes etc.

I do too. Unfortunately that's not what we have right now, at either end of the scale.

[Rincewind]

For every scrounger caught there are xxx number of people losing jobs and becoming new claimants. For every tax evader or MP falsely claiming for second homes caught there is a golden handshake.

Sounds fair to me.

Not all people on benefits are unemployed. A big percentage are low paid workers doing part time or getting tax credits. They are the ones on minimum wage. The majority of unemployed are seeking work. It is only a small number that falsely claim and quite a few are caught or informed on. There are many people who do not know what they can claim or do not want to.

[FoxyPV]

TPH - a meritocracy is fine if everyone is starting from the place. There are environmental and class issue which affect this.

Scrooge - are you trying to say that people on benefits are genetically programmed to be on benefits? Or am I incorrectly reading your response to Moose?

[The People's Hero]

TPH - a meritocracy is fine if everyone is starting from the place. There are environmental and class issue which affect this.

Scrooge - are you trying to say that people on benefits are genetically programmed to be on benefits? Or am I incorrectly reading your response to Moose?

You are right, but why does that work against a meritocracy.

Everyone has the right and opportunity to work hard to better their circumstances.

[MooseBreath]

I think the bankers in the US (and by extension over here) caused a large worldwide depression through taking ridiculous risks on sub-prime mortgages. And yes, overspending by the last Government exacerbated that effect and as a result this Government thinks the best way to recover economically is to take austerity measures. Personally I think people should be encouraged to try to keep the economy flowing and businesses (and jobs) afloat by spending and keeping the money circulating rather than saving and letting it keep stagnating, but that's purely my opinion. I don't profess to be an economics expert, and even at the expert level there seems to be 10 different 'right' ways to do things.

But it was the bad decisions made by a few powerful groups of individuals that started all of this off (who of course have never been identified, let alone brought to account). Mis-spending by Government has just added to it.

The credit crunch and our government overspending were separate events. One didn't cause the other. You could argue that the fall in GDP caused by the credit crunch made the deficit worse, and you could argue that having to "bail out" some banks made the deficit worse, and you'd be right, but the effects of that pales in comparison to the reckless spending binge labour went on towards the end of their time in power. I would put the blame 99.4% on labour and 0.6% on 'the bankers'.

[leicsmac]

The credit crunch and our government overspending were separate events. One didn't cause the other. You could argue that the fall in GDP caused by the credit crunch made the deficit worse, and you could argue that having to "bail out" some banks made the deficit worse, and you'd be right, but the effects of that pales in comparison to the reckless spending binge labour went on towards the end of their time in power. I would put the blame 99.4% on labour and 0.6% on 'the bankers'.

I think you're overstating the effect Government spending had and understating the effect the people who began the credit crunch had, but then that is the product of our different political ideologies. I will definitely agree that reckless spending did have an effect, though.

The recession affected the entire world (and still is) no matter what any Government did with public spending. The only nation to maintain any kind of momentum was China, and that was because of its vast manufacturing industry (always gotta make stuff, wish we did more of it here in the UK) and the virtual enslavement of many of its population.

[Raj]

IMHO you should have had to add something to society over the years before you start taking from society.

(Dont rreally know how this works with the youngsters staring out in life who cant get a job?)

BUT any fcukers coming fromEU (or anywhere for that matter) with the sole intention of claiming benefits should be shot!

[RonnieTodger]

Shes probably being paid a tidy sum to "brag about it" by the sun.

I thought something along those lines. Maybe not money, but something. She comes across as far too smug, so that she'd become the subject of an angry-mob.

[FoxyPV]

You are right, but why does that work against a meritocracy.

Everyone has the right and opportunity to work hard to better their circumstances.

But those towards the bottom end of society do not have the same opportunities or facilities to help them achieve in the same manner as the more wealthy people. This is setting aside the old boy network that benefits those with a higher social standing.

These inequalities negate the notion of successful meritocracy because it is not all down to hard work.

[Alf Bentley]

Anyone commenting on the original Sun "scroungers" story should follow Bellend Sebastian's link below - and engage in a bit of self-criticism. Such as: "Who is pulling my strings?"; "What are they making me think?"; "Why might a billionnaire corporation like News International fabricate stories to make me blame immigrants and not billionnaire corporations for the country's problems?"

I just hope her next acting job is something a bit more rewarding (from an artistic point of view, anyway) than appearing in a bollocks story in a shit newspaper aimed at cretins

http://politicsuk.eu/archives/14347

As for Moosebreath's laughable argument that UK economic problems were caused by Labour spending, not irresponsible, unregulated capitalism (admittedly, partly Labour's fault in aping the Tories) and greedy bankers....

This argument assumes :

- That economies worldwide have been devastated by the credit crunch (or was Labour running the US & EU economies too?!)

- That miraculously the UK economy somehow avoided the effects of the credit crunch (caused by the banks & poor regulation)

- Yet, coincidentally, the UK economy has simultaneously suffered an identical impact, all caused by Gordon Brown!!

Yes, the Labour government should have run a surplus in the boom years, instead of a small - yes, small - deficit. In my view, it should have done so by increasing certain taxes and not wasting some of its expenditure, but that's a political preference (right-wingers will want less spending, left-wingers more tax for investment & redistribution). However, a lot of Labour's deficit spending went on investment on public services and tax credits to make work pay. Cameron's Tories are now also running a deficit, but aside from debt interest (caused by the inadequately regulated banks) it is mostly going on welfare payments to the unemployed, not investment. We seem to have learned **** all from the 1930s. Cameron = Herbert Hoover & Neville Chamberlain (appeasing the xenophobes), there's no FDR New Deal on the horizon....so who's going to play the Hitler role this time round?!?

[Guest]

Their damage is more a social sort of damage yes.

I do think though that financially more should be done to help working people with children (like myself) as opposed to those who can't be arsed.

I'm biased though, of course I am - and naturally greedy since I'm a product of the capitalist and materialistic environment in which we all live.

free condoms. From your recent posts I would suggest that having more children was a bad idea.

IMHO you should have had to add something to society over the years before you start taking from society.

(Dont rreally know how this works with the youngsters staring out in life who cant get a job?)

BUT any fcukers coming fromEU (or anywhere for that matter) with the sole intention of claiming benefits should be shot!

They have to stay at home with their parents until they've paid into the system.

That's another argument for these ridiculous creche claims too. If you want kids make sure you can afford them and look after them. If you can't be at home to bring them up properly then farm them out to your parents or grandparents. It would help with community too.

And finally the point somewhere are scroungers and bankers. At least scroungers money is put back into the local economy helping support local shops and jobs. Bankers money leaves the country and helps no_one.

[Rincewind]

Her being an actor does not surprise me. I have not seen the original article but look on it as a 'Elvis is Alive' story

Her story represents what a lot of people perceive of the unemployed or anyone on benefits. Much like Ian Beales portrayal of a homeless person in Eastenders. The story writers no doubt did their research but found it would be a better storyline if he had transformed into someone that had lived on the streets for 20 years rather than 6 or 7 weeks.

The Sun story just preached to the converted.

[MooseBreath]

As for Moosebreath's laughable argument that UK economic problems were caused by Labour spending, not irresponsible, unregulated capitalism (admittedly, partly Labour's fault in aping the Tories) and greedy bankers....

This argument assumes :

- That economies worldwide have been devastated by the credit crunch (or was Labour running the US & EU economies too?!)

- That miraculously the UK economy somehow avoided the effects of the credit crunch (caused by the banks & poor regulation)

- Yet, coincidentally, the UK economy has simultaneously suffered an identical impact, all caused by Gordon Brown!!

Yes, the Labour government should have run a surplus in the boom years, instead of a small - yes, small - deficit. In my view, it should have done so by increasing certain taxes and not wasting some of its expenditure, but that's a political preference (right-wingers will want less spending, left-wingers more tax for investment & redistribution). However, a lot of Labour's deficit spending went on investment on public services and tax credits to make work pay. Cameron's Tories are now also running a deficit, but aside from debt interest (caused by the inadequately regulated banks) it is mostly going on welfare payments to the unemployed, not investment. We seem to have learned **** all from the 1930s. Cameron = Herbert Hoover & Neville Chamberlain (appeasing the xenophobes), there's no FDR New Deal on the horizon....so who's going to play the Hitler role this time round?!?

It's really quite simple. The credit crunch caused a lot of economic problems including recession in various countries including ours. Separately, labour were indulging their every whim in a last minute bid to buy votes, which ruined public finances. The economy and public finances are not the same thing. Currently we are deep in austerity as we are having to repair the damage done by labour. The credit crunch didn't help and is still making things difficult, but the fact is that labour were ludicrously irresponsible and that is the main reason why we are now struggling.

[Guest BlueBrett]

But those towards the bottom end of society do not have the same opportunities or facilities to help them achieve in the same manner as the more wealthy people. This is setting aside the old boy network that benefits those with a higher social standing.

These inequalities negate the notion of successful meritocracy because it is not all down to hard work.

That just means that some people's ancestors have done better than others. Surely it's right that one can hope to improve the prospects of their offspring through their success and not just their own standard of living?

To the people trying to pin our economic woes on the bankers, the government, the lazy, immigrants or whoever I would say that we are simply experiencing an inevitable period of decline. It will turn around for a bit in a few years but a few years after that we will be back in a similar situation. Scarcity is the most fundamental economic truth and yet the stated economic goal of almost every political party worldwide is growth growth growth. It just doesn't make sense. How can you have indefinite, uninterrupted growth when there is only a finite amount of 'stuff'? We need a major rethink about what we want the economy to do for us and the limitations need to be defined. Wont happen though because there are no short term gains to be had from a discussion like that and that's all anyone cares about.

[ADK]

A large part of the problem is a lack of social housing. We can thank Thatcher for that.

[leicsmac]

That just means that some people's ancestors have done better than others. Surely it's right that one can hope to improve the prospects of their offspring through their success and not just their own standard of living?

To the people trying to pin our economic woes on the bankers, the government, the lazy, immigrants or whoever I would say that we are simply experiencing an inevitable period of decline. It will turn around for a bit in a few years but a few years after that we will be back in a similar situation. Scarcity is the most fundamental economic truth and yet the stated economic goal of almost every political party worldwide is growth growth growth. It just doesn't make sense. How can you have indefinite, uninterrupted growth when there is only a finite amount of 'stuff'? We need a major rethink about what we want the economy to do for us and the limitations need to be defined. Wont happen though because there are no short term gains to be had from a discussion like that and that's all anyone cares about.

Only by finding or producing more 'stuff'. And we are going to hit a wall as far as natural resources on Earth go quite soon, I think.

Which is why the asteroid mining thing needs to be taken a bit more seriously in the near future.

-End total off-topic plug-

[J.Lisemore]

Can't even blame her, she's just making the most of our pathetic country. Is it any wonder that nobody respects our government

[Rincewind]

True, she has to take what acting roles she can.

[Guest MattP]

She's clearly working as an escort on the side.