StephenH
David Ginola
He’s talking like he's been already been down there for too long.
Last edited:
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
He’s talking like he's been already been down there for too long.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The short political declaration already said the foundation would be the customs union, which is BINO. The deal is basically EEA without FoM
StephenH
David Ginola
.
It always feels bloated, which I agree with in the most part, until you need it for your family.
It always feels bloated, which I agree with in the most part, until you need it for your family.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I always think the welfare debate is a bit of a Daily Mail myth. The stats show we spend 17% of government expenditure on the elderly, compared to 6% on un and under employed, compared to 5% on the sick and disabled. So it just that 6% that is the group that people are potentially hostile to as 'undeserving'. Most capitalists think you need a 3-4% level of unemployment as an optimum anyway - to keep the supply/demand thing in check.
There are definitely things that could be tweaked - working tax credits should be abolished and employers made to pay liveable wage (which will be easier to enforce after FoM ends), more direct transfer of benefits to essentials like housing and food, more disincentives on buy-to-let to bring down rents, abolishing social care PFIs to bring down the cost of care etc.
But generally I think welfare is about where it should be for a civilised first world country.
There are definitely things that could be tweaked - working tax credits should be abolished and employers made to pay liveable wage (which will be easier to enforce after FoM ends), more direct transfer of benefits to essentials like housing and food, more disincentives on buy-to-let to bring down rents, abolishing social care PFIs to bring down the cost of care etc.
But generally I think welfare is about where it should be for a civilised first world country.
In Zurich at least the national service and secret societies in Universities still hold a lot of sway in everyday and work life. Its opening up a little bit but until recently it was hard to do well (management) without being a major in the army. You would often see people higher on the pecking order at work being subservient due to being lower in Army rank.
Its also a small country so they are fiercely proud of it(tends to be the case) which adds in another ingredient thats a bit unsettling.
I love Geneva and would move there in a heartbeat it my wife and factories would move as easily.
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
If Im not mistaken, @Danishfurniturelover is talking about a pretty specific slice of society.
And much like my comments on immigration, its a regional thing, so your exposure/understanding will vary depending on where you live etc.
Where I come from being on benefits is a career choice, not a necessity. A decision made to NOT work, but instead get money for free.
Ive seen it, in close friends even. No attempt made to get an education because the plan was ALWAYS to get knocked up young, get given a place and then get given everything you need.
THESE are people completely able to work, but choosing not to. These are people that are literally an unnecessary drain on the state, deliberately so*.
And do you think their children will be any different? Id say chance are not. My friend is up to four kids now, none of which I imagine will do any different to her.
As I say, this is certainly a regional thing. I can point to whole towns where at least half the population is playing the same game - you may struggle to imagine such.
While I wouldnt see these people neutered, I certainly wouldnt be against squeezing their benefits and cushy lifestyle such that they find working more agreeable.
And, IMHO, Blairs government is entirely to blame for it.
*This is then compounded by having to find people who will work in place of these layabouts, who will also require state support (to a lesser or greater degree).
And much like my comments on immigration, its a regional thing, so your exposure/understanding will vary depending on where you live etc.
Where I come from being on benefits is a career choice, not a necessity. A decision made to NOT work, but instead get money for free.
Ive seen it, in close friends even. No attempt made to get an education because the plan was ALWAYS to get knocked up young, get given a place and then get given everything you need.
THESE are people completely able to work, but choosing not to. These are people that are literally an unnecessary drain on the state, deliberately so*.
And do you think their children will be any different? Id say chance are not. My friend is up to four kids now, none of which I imagine will do any different to her.
As I say, this is certainly a regional thing. I can point to whole towns where at least half the population is playing the same game - you may struggle to imagine such.
While I wouldnt see these people neutered, I certainly wouldnt be against squeezing their benefits and cushy lifestyle such that they find working more agreeable.
And, IMHO, Blairs government is entirely to blame for it.
*This is then compounded by having to find people who will work in place of these layabouts, who will also require state support (to a lesser or greater degree).
Baleforce
Ron Henry
I'm gonna sound like a dolphin fudging hippy here, but these people are victims, the system should lift them out of it, not punish them for it, they are a product of their environment and education (not just academic, but social and familial).
The aspiration of government should be to help everyone.
I very nearly agree with you. The aspiration of government should be to ensure that everyone has a chance to help themselves. It should provide for those who can not.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
I think I do agree with that.
I’m not sure you’d find anyone who was purely “will not” though, none of us popped out of the womb and just got on with it.
Except for Lamela obviously.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Yes and no, for me.
They were given an education, opportunities, and threw it away (specific examples in my experience, for sure). Cant blame the government for that.
And unless something is done to break the cycle, its only going to get worse.
Her mum had 4 kids, two work, two dont. She now has 4, and never intended to work, and Im going to take a guess and suggest her kids will follow her example. Her daughter is 13 I think, 5 years before the next generation come along?
A familial failure of education, yes - but one knowingly supported by the government.
As I say, put the squeeze on the cushy life and lets see what a little motivation can do for them.
Blair made it far to easy, set this whole thing up with no foresight whatsoever.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
It's not about apportioning blame.
I agree the cycle needs to be broken, but I don't think the answer is to cut people out.
StephenH
David Ginola
There are always those who will take advantage or manipulate any system to further there own agenda.
The system, in this case, is more focused on the child rather than the mother. Living in a B&B for over 18 months with two under fives is no "advantage" from the few we have seen. The alternative does not work long term and for the children is not worth thinking about.
Its system is by no means perfect but it never will be. If you as you correctly say along the way give some 'dregs' an easier life, for me is a price worth paying.
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Im not pointing out blame - but yes its Blair - rather where it really started.
Helps to understand where things come from, doesnt it?
And Im not even talking about cutting people out, rather making things much more bare necessities to encourage them to better themselves and become more productive. In turn setting a better example to their children and hopefully breaking that cycle.
The idea of a shopping card/food stamps as suggested, with which you cant buy fags and booze etc - seems fair to me. It gives what is needed, no more. Not that Im saying its entirely practical/workable as a specific solution - but the intent I think is what should be noted.
The government can put the squeeze on, take comforts away - thats fine with me. So long as a path "out" is also offered. Be that by work opportunity, education or whatever - if you take with one hand you need to give with the other - else its just about punishment.
BUT - "encouraging" people away from that lifestyle is, IMHO, vitally important.
.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Ive also mentioned before, but education needs to change as well. It needs to be recognised that not everybody is academically minded.
A good friend of mine, so far as school was concerned, was basically retarded. He wasnt in the least academically minded, school didnt work for him. He ended up disillusioned and disrupted. Not helped by being treated as if he was an idiot.
Heres the thing though. At 11 years old, I saw him take apart a stereo, fix a broken part, and put it back together as good as new. Similar with other appliances, then bikes and such - he was building them from scratch, until at 16 he was fixing peoples cars on the side.
Quite clearly, and intelligence, logic and skill displayed he was never credited for. Because he wasnt "academic".
I think we need to break schooling up. Get the basics in, reading, writing, arithmetic - but from about 13/14 allow kids vocational options.
What I would have given to be able to drop school at 14 and go into an apprenticeship!
And when you think about it, why the hell not? My mate never went on to be an accountant, work an office, do anything with a GCSE, he went into the building trades as soon as he could. Albeit years later than he would have liked to.
Why not identify kids that would rather work with their hands, and have them leave school as ready made plumbers, electricians, mechanics, builders etc? Having served an apprenticeship and able to work full time from the off.
A good friend of mine, so far as school was concerned, was basically retarded. He wasnt in the least academically minded, school didnt work for him. He ended up disillusioned and disrupted. Not helped by being treated as if he was an idiot.
Heres the thing though. At 11 years old, I saw him take apart a stereo, fix a broken part, and put it back together as good as new. Similar with other appliances, then bikes and such - he was building them from scratch, until at 16 he was fixing peoples cars on the side.
Quite clearly, and intelligence, logic and skill displayed he was never credited for. Because he wasnt "academic".
I think we need to break schooling up. Get the basics in, reading, writing, arithmetic - but from about 13/14 allow kids vocational options.
What I would have given to be able to drop school at 14 and go into an apprenticeship!
And when you think about it, why the hell not? My mate never went on to be an accountant, work an office, do anything with a GCSE, he went into the building trades as soon as he could. Albeit years later than he would have liked to.
Why not identify kids that would rather work with their hands, and have them leave school as ready made plumbers, electricians, mechanics, builders etc? Having served an apprenticeship and able to work full time from the off.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Who do yo need buy in from? Its the governments job to do what is in the best interest, something they conveniently have the power to effect.
If they decide this is how it goes, then good for them. As I said, providing they offer opportunities, I think its fair.
....and allow the teachers to concentrate on pushing the academic kids further.
You don't have to sample many teachers to find that, after disruptive behaviour, trying to cater for various levels of ability in a classroom is what will stop effective teaching.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Absolutely. I was going to say as much but lost my train of thought.
Its win-win so far as I can see. Academic kids get surrounded by academic kids, all pulling in the same direction and so benefiting from a better environment and generally higher standard. "Practical" kids get to go and learn skills that are actually useful at an age when earning money isnt important.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
the people you are trying to help