The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

When you get married, try to buy a house and have two or three kids Pru, your perspectives will suffer a dramatic change of direction. I guarantee it, especially when you have to share your hard-earned with the guy on benefit down the road who can't work but mnanages to get a couple of rounds of golf in every week.

I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said. Either he is physically, or mentally unable to work, or despite his best efforts he can't get a job, in which case I'm not sure how he can be begrudged money from the state, or he isn't working and contributing, as I said, to the state in which case I'd agree with your inferred point that it is unjust he live a life of dossing on the taxpayer. You can well state examples of people abusing the system, as I believe Enfield did recently, but that doesn't mean everyone on benefits or living in a council house is a scrounge or or undeserving. No system will ever be infallible, but if some people scabbing a lazy life living off the taxpayer is the price to be paid for providing help to those in need and more unfortunate then, as long as that cost is minimised as much as possible, it is a price worth paying.

[Prufrock]

Also Keveh's probably going to go MENTAL at me and SJM's last convo

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

When you get married, try to buy a house and have two or three kids Pru, your perspectives will suffer a dramatic change of direction. I guarantee it, especially when you have to share your hard-earned with the guy on benefit down the road who can't work but mnanages to get a couple of rounds of golf in every week.

Mine haven't. I work in a job i enjoy immensely. I have four kids with another on the way and couldn't actually give any more of a flying feck about "having to share my hardearned with a guy on benefit" than i do about paying my "hard earned" to a government who wage war with impunity and perpetuate a capitalist system so intrinsically flawed and immoral as to allow billions of pounds/dollars to be spent propping up an immoral and intrinsically flawed banking system than investing in trivialities such as world poverty. Rather less of a flying feck actually.
I've always held the view that those that carp on about benefit scroungers must be very unhappy in their work - over concerned about what him up the road is getting/doing/not doing than getting on with their own lives and enjoying what they do. I have two relatives on benefits : i could be taxed 95% of my wage and i still wouldnt swap my life with theirs.

[TANGODANCER]

When you get married, try to buy a house and have two or three kids Pru, your perspectives will suffer a dramatic change of direction. I guarantee it, especially when you have to share your hard-earned with the guy on benefit down the road who can't work but mnanages to get a couple of rounds of golf in every week.

Mine haven't. I work in a job i enjoy immensely. I have four kids with another on the way and couldn't actually give any more of a flying feck about "having to share my hardearned with a guy on benefit" than i do about paying my "hard earned" to a government who wage war with impunity and perpetuate a capitalist system so intrinsically flawed and immoral as to allow billions of pounds/dollars to be spent propping up an immoral and intrinsically flawed banking system than investing in trivialities such as world poverty. Rather less of a flying feck actually.
I've always held the view that those that carp on about benefit scroungers must be very unhappy in their work - over concerned about what him up the road is getting/doing/not doing than getting on with their own lives and enjoying what they do. I have two relatives on benefits : i could be taxed 95% of my wage and i still wouldnt swap my life with theirs.

I have no beef with genuine unfortunates and was speaking metaphorically ( although I have met a few genuine scroungers in my time). Just the somewhat worn view of an almost seventy against that of a clear-eyed twenty year old. I've enjoyed almost all of my life, raised a familyy, rough with the smooth, lived in a council house, seen unemployment and am still working at a job I enjoy and paying tax. Unhappy isn't a word to really describe me, just a little more life-experienced shall we say.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

No system will ever be infallible, but if some people scabbing a lazy life living off the taxpayer is the price to be paid for providing help to those in need and more unfortunate then, as long as that cost is minimised as much as possible, it is a price worth paying.

When you get married, try to buy a house and have two or three kids Pru, your perspectives will suffer a dramatic change of direction. I guarantee it, especially when you have to share your hard-earned with the guy on benefit down the road who can't work but mnanages to get a couple of rounds of golf in every week.

Mine haven't. I work in a job i enjoy immensely. I have four kids with another on the way and couldn't actually give any more of a flying feck about "having to share my hardearned with a guy on benefit" than i do about paying my "hard earned" to a government who wage war with impunity and perpetuate a capitalist system so intrinsically flawed and immoral as to allow billions of pounds/dollars to be spent propping up an immoral and intrinsically flawed banking system than investing in trivialities such as world poverty. Rather less of a flying feck actually.
I've always held the view that those that carp on about benefit scroungers must be very unhappy in their work - over concerned about what him up the road is getting/doing/not doing than getting on with their own lives and enjoying what they do. I have two relatives on benefits : i could be taxed 95% of my wage and i still wouldnt swap my life with theirs.

The thing is, Napalm, it is this last sentence of yours that is instructive.

I'm not motivated by jealous or selfish concerns about people taking the piss, enjoying a leisurely life of Riley while others pay for it. On the contrary, I am quite sure it is a miserable, unfulfilling existence. I can't imagine anything more soul-destroying than being stuck in a cycle of living on handouts, with nothing to generate a sense of self worth. My idea of a perfect welfare state involves reducing the moral hazard of the possibility of such a life to the bare minimum. I've no doubt that some would accuse me of being either insincere or simply patronizing, but I do actually feel sympathy for those in this situation.

Recently we had a thread about this family:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... nough.html

Somebody joked that the humane option was to pay them nothing at all so that they would wither away, but actually there's probably some truth in it. The system as it currently operates has created a family that thinks it 'deserves' more than the £22,000 in benefits it receives... this is not as simple as a well-intentioned system letting a few chancers through the net - this is a system that creates this mindset and incentivizes this behaviour. What would have happened to these types before the welfare state? Presumably they would have had to sorted themselves out to survive. Is that a necessarily bad thing?

I see my politics as being rooted in the tradition of the 'One Nation Conservatism' or 'Tory Democracy' of the likes of Disraeli and F.E. Smith. Churchill described F.E. as 'one of those Tories who united pride in the glories of England to an earnest sympathy with the wage-earning masses and cottage homes'. For Smith, the true test of any measure of social reform was: "Does it, or does it not, add to the total productive efficiency and prosperity of the whole people?" I think I can say with confidence that whenever a policy passes that test, I will be on board.

I think 'national solidarity' is a tremendously important idea, maybe even the guiding conservative principle, but that it is only undermined by the existence of an underclass with no aspirations.

[TANGODANCER]

I think Mummy, that the answers are far harder come by than the questions. We live in a civilised country with National Health and pensions based on taxes paid over our working lives. Compared to a lot of countries, we are really very fortunate due to organisation by our leaders. We all complain about taxes etc, but we could be far worse off. To the genuine working classes it isn't totally easy, but just about managable.

That said, not all people are the same, not all situations likewise. No truly unfortunate people can be blamed for trying for a better life, as is the case with immigration. Lots of people will work for buttons - employed by unscrupulous people happy to exploit their situation to their own advantage- in order to just make some sort of a living that is better than what they had. On the other hand, people who are born and live here are further divided into genuine and exploiters and, right now, masses of people who suddenly face unemloyment due to the current financial mess that now exists. Suddenly people who follow standard procedure of working for a living and taking on mortgages etc, based on the value of their earnings, are out of work and facing re-possesion of their homes. The attitude of "could never happen to me" is suddenly a real possibility. That's when the real unfairness of exploitation of our system comes home to roost.

That's when folk realise that families like the one in your link are just truly taking the pxxs. It's when people like the Islam hate-preachers etc, living here on state benefits are truly exposed for the joke they are and the governments' methods of patting themselves on the back and rewarding themselves personally is finally called into question. The biblical Land of Milk and Honey never really existed for all, just for some. It will take a far cleverer person than me to know the answers to any of it.

[CAPSLOCK]

When you get married, try to buy a house and have two or three kids Pru, your perspectives will suffer a dramatic change of direction. I guarantee it, especially when you have to share your hard-earned with the guy on benefit down the road who can't work but mnanages to get a couple of rounds of golf in every week.

Mine haven't. I work in a job i enjoy immensely. I have four kids with another on the way and couldn't actually give any more of a flying feck about "having to share my hardearned with a guy on benefit" than i do about paying my "hard earned" to a government who wage war with impunity and perpetuate a capitalist system so intrinsically flawed and immoral as to allow billions of pounds/dollars to be spent propping up an immoral and intrinsically flawed banking system than investing in trivialities such as world poverty. Rather less of a flying feck actually.
I've always held the view that those that carp on about benefit scroungers must be very unhappy in their work - over concerned about what him up the road is getting/doing/not doing than getting on with their own lives and enjoying what they do. I have two relatives on benefits : i could be taxed 95% of my wage and i still wouldnt swap my life with theirs.

Lucky you

Plenty aren't happy with their lot and can't have the life they want or provide what they want for their families

Maybe even you perfect folk can grant them just a few moments annoyance amongst their dreary day to day existence

Say for example we didn't 'waste' cash on wars could we then get to grips with the workshy and wasters - or does your perfect world not allow that even then?

[TANGODANCER]

Joanna Lumley for Prime Minister. More balls, brains and sense of righteousness than the lot of em. (and a fxxking sight better looking too)

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

Mummy- thanks for your considered and measured response to my post. We may be diametrically opposed on the issue of what causes a dependency culture in society and indeed on politics in general but at least you have actually read my post and looked to comment constructively on what i actually said/implied.
Capslock- feck off.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Joanna Lumley for Prime Minister. More balls, brains and sense of righteousness than the lot of em. (and a fxxking sight better looking too)

Is it just me who doesn't quite get this whole Gurkha thing?

Is it really that obvious that doing that particular job should come with the perk of British residence (along with the same for dependents), like a company car or something?

Unless a Gurkha was promised this perk before signing up, why is it 'immoral' to deny him it now?

[TANGODANCER]

Is it just me who doesn't quite get this whole Ghurka thing?
Unless a Ghurka was promised this perk before signing up, why is it 'immoral' to deny him it now?

Only thing I can say is read the history of the Gurkhas with the British army, Mummy, or ask an old soldier. They've fought for Britain through countless wars and are the most highly regarded soldiers and allies we ever had. To deny them citizenship whilst granting it to all manner of others is entirely against the grain. These people earned the right to live here if they wish.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Is it just me who doesn't quite get this whole Ghurka thing?
Unless a Ghurka was promised this perk before signing up, why is it 'immoral' to deny him it now?

Only thing I can say is read the history of the Gurkhas with the British army, Mummy, or ask an old soldier. They've fought for Britain through countless wars and are the most highly regarded soldiers and allies we ever had. To deny them citizenship whilst granting it to all manner of others is entirely against the grain. These people earned the right to live here if they wish.

I'm familiar with the history of the Gurkhas, and with the high regard in which they are held as soldiers.

Is it not the case that there are thousands of excess applications to join the Gurkhas every year though? It's clear that it's seen as a very attractive career option in Nepal - let's not kid ourselves that these formidable men sign up out of a love for Queen and country, for the glory of good old Albion.

Are they not just essentially outside contractors whom we pay to do a job they are more than enthusiastic about doing on its own terms?

Anyway, what I think doesn't matter - but how can the Government possibly be so out of touch with the overwhelming strength of popular opinion on this?

[BWFC_Insane]

Is it just me who doesn't quite get this whole Ghurka thing?
Unless a Ghurka was promised this perk before signing up, why is it 'immoral' to deny him it now?

Only thing I can say is read the history of the Gurkhas with the British army, Mummy, or ask an old soldier. They've fought for Britain through countless wars and are the most highly regarded soldiers and allies we ever had. To deny them citizenship whilst granting it to all manner of others is entirely against the grain. These people earned the right to live here if they wish.

I'm familiar with the history of the Gurkhas, and with the high regard in which they are held as soldiers.

Is it not the case that there are thousands of excess applications to join the Gurkhas every year though? It's clear that it's seen as a very attractive career option in Nepal - let's not kid ourselves that these formidable men sign up out of a love for Queen and country, for the glory of good old Albion.

Are they not just essentially outside contractors whom we pay to do a job they are more than enthusiastic about doing on its own terms?

Anyway, what I think doesn't matter - but how can the Government possibly be so out of touch with the overwhelming strength of popular opinion on this?[/quote]

In the same way you are?

Go ask Lumley and Cameron.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In the same way you are?

Go ask Lumley and Cameron.

I don't have to consider public opinion when forming or expressing my views.

Having views that diverge from public opinion is not the same as being out of touch with it. I'm sure you can see the distinction.

[BWFC_Insane]

In the same way you are?

Go ask Lumley and Cameron.

I don't have to consider public opinion when forming or expressing my views.

Having views that diverge from public opinion is not the same as being out of touch with it. I'm sure you can see the distinction.

Indeed and I'm sure a government that succumbed to public opinion on every issue would be a disaster!

[Worthy4England]

Joanna Lumley for Prime Minister. More balls, brains and sense of righteousness than the lot of em. (and a fxxking sight better looking too)

Is it just me who doesn't quite get this whole Gurkha thing?

No, I take 'em straight off me, McDonald's anyhow. Nasty little green feckers.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In the same way you are?

Go ask Lumley and Cameron.

I don't have to consider public opinion when forming or expressing my views.

Having views that diverge from public opinion is not the same as being out of touch with it. I'm sure you can see the distinction.

Indeed and I'm sure a government that succumbed to public opinion on every issue would be a disaster!

Well, yes - and I think that the thrust of what I was saying is that the fact that public opinion is all one way doesn't necessarily mean that something is obvious.

You'd expect a government to be at least aware of public opinion though.

[Worthy4England]

In the same way you are?

Go ask Lumley and Cameron.

I don't have to consider public opinion when forming or expressing my views.

Having views that diverge from public opinion is not the same as being out of touch with it. I'm sure you can see the distinction.

Indeed and I'm sure a government that succumbed to public opinion on every issue would be a disaster!

Well, yes - and I think that the thrust of what I was saying is that the fact that public opinion is all one way doesn't necessarily mean that something is obvious.

You'd expect a government to be at least aware of public opinion though.

Aye - just like the last colour government was

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Aye - just like the last colour government was

Does every criticism of (or even observation about) the Government necessarily have to be equated to a party political broadcast for HM's Opposition?

[Worthy4England]

Aye - just like the last colour government was

Does every criticism of (or even observation about) the Government necessarily have to be equated to a party political broadcast for HM's Opposition?

If it comes from you my true blue friend then probably, on reflection, yes.