|
U-Know! Forum » Tories and unemployment benefits |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Aug 13, 2008, 15:47
Aug 13, 2008, 15:42
|
||
|
David Cameron says he wants to emulate the Wisconsin system of welfare benefits. Johann Hari looks at what that actually means - compulsory work for anyone with kids over three months old and, most frighteningly, a maximum of two years unemployment benefits. not as in 'two years non-stop in any given claim period', but as in 'two years when you add it all together for your whole life'. If you have two years out of work in your late teens, work for 30 years and then get made redundant when you're 50, it's soup kitchens for you. It cut the number of people on benefits by 80%, says Cameron. That's because they're too scared to use up their claim, so they're blagging off their families or begging on the streets. In a world where there's more people than jobs (1.6 million unemployed in the UK and rising) it's cruel and insane to treat unemployment as a criminal offence.
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 13, 2008, 16:29
|
||
It is an awful thing to treat unemployment as a crime, and should be fought all the way. It is, however, also a crime to treat unemployment as some kind of career choice. I know loads of people who wont get a job as they are better of on the dole, and one of them told me he was proud that he had taken more out of the system than he had paid in - tosser.....
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Aug 13, 2008, 23:57
Aug 13, 2008, 16:51
|
||
|
pooley wrote: It is an awful thing to treat unemployment as a crime, and should be fought all the way. It is, however, also a crime to treat unemployment as some kind of career choice. I know loads of people who wont get a job as they are better of on the dole, and one of them told me he was proud that he had taken more out of the system than he had paid in - tosser..... The bloke you mentioned may well be a tosser. But I disagree with your main point. I feel we need to fundamentally change the way we view "work". While on the one hand, 'work' may be synonymous with 'economic activity' it is also -- in physical terms -- 'the consumption of energy'. Energy resources are about to become a defining issue for our society in my opinion and our success or failure in dealing with this issue will be decided by our ability to sustain ourselves in the face of a radical reduction in energy consumption / economic activity / work. People should be given every incentive to live low-impact, low-energy, largely localised lives. To do this truly effectively would require a significant shift in how we organise society, as well as a shift in how we view economic activity (from something that should be maximised, to something that should be minimised). I don't think anyone expects that kind of thinking to emerge from mainstream politics, but it's still galling to watch them work so hard to move even further to the other extreme.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 14, 2008, 17:01
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: pooley wrote: It is an awful thing to treat unemployment as a crime, and should be fought all the way. It is, however, also a crime to treat unemployment as some kind of career choice. I know loads of people who wont get a job as they are better of on the dole, and one of them told me he was proud that he had taken more out of the system than he had paid in - tosser..... The bloke you mentioned may well be a tosser. But I disagree with your main point. I feel we need to fundamentally change the way we view "work". While on the one hand, 'work' may be synonymous with 'economic activity' it is also -- in physical terms -- 'the consumption of energy'. Energy resources are about to become a defining issue for our society in my opinion and our success or failure in dealing with this issue will be decided by our ability to sustain ourselves in the face of a radical reduction in energy consumption / economic activity / work. People should be given every incentive to live low-impact, low-energy, largely localised lives. To do this truly effectively would require a significant shift in how we organise society, as well as a shift in how we view economic activity (from something that should be maximised, to something that should be minimised). I don't think anyone expects that kind of thinking to emerge from mainstream politics, but it's still galling to watch them work so hard to move even further to the other extreme. That would be lovely, I agree. It is something to aspire to - but back in the real world, it aint ever gonna happen - sadly.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Aug 14, 2008, 23:55
Aug 14, 2008, 23:54
|
||
|
pooley wrote: That would be lovely, I agree. It is something to aspire to - but back in the real world, it aint ever gonna happen - sadly. I completely disagree with that. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is 100% certain that the changes I wrote about will occur. The choice is not whether or not we will transition to a low-energy society. That choice doesn't exist. It will happen as we further draw down available energy resources. The only choice we have is how we go about it. It can be done willingly, by actively directing our resources towards creating a sustainable society. This way will minimise the suffering and disruption that the transition will cause. Alternatively, we can deny that the transition is necessary and spend all of our time and resources postponing the inevitable. By doing this, we are probably greatly increasing the total amount of disruption and suffering, as well as reducing the likelihood of even achieving the transition successfully.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 15, 2008, 13:01
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: pooley wrote: That would be lovely, I agree. It is something to aspire to - but back in the real world, it aint ever gonna happen - sadly. I completely disagree with that. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is 100% certain that the changes I wrote about will occur. The choice is not whether or not we will transition to a low-energy society. That choice doesn't exist. It will happen as we further draw down available energy resources. The only choice we have is how we go about it. It can be done willingly, by actively directing our resources towards creating a sustainable society. This way will minimise the suffering and disruption that the transition will cause. Alternatively, we can deny that the transition is necessary and spend all of our time and resources postponing the inevitable. By doing this, we are probably greatly increasing the total amount of disruption and suffering, as well as reducing the likelihood of even achieving the transition successfully. I think the 2nd choice is what will happen - though I cant help thinking we are talking about two very different things. You are talking about a complete shift in the way we live our lives. I'm talking about the type of people who are happy to spend their whole lives on benefit. The one thing I think we agree on is that society is a two way street - you take out what you put in - people i see in my town are stuck on a one way road. As a disclaimer, I want to say that this doesn't apply to all people on benefits, did a long stint of that my self, just the people who choose it as a life style and then wonder why there aint enough money for schools, nhs etc.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Aug 16, 2008, 20:30
|
||
|
pooley wrote: I know loads of people who wont get a job as they are better of on the dole Can you agree that there are more people than jobs? (As there are 1.6 million unemployed, that seems like you can) Can you agree that there are always going to be more people than jobs? If so, we face several options, and I'm wondering which you'd consider best; 1) We make the large pool of unemployed play musical chairs for the smaller pool of jobs 2) We remove benefits from those without a job 3) We find those who can live full and contented lives on the bare minimum, and give them dole, focusing our benefits budget on those who actually want help into work.
|
|||
head-first 214 posts |
Aug 17, 2008, 17:22
|
||
|
Cameron's greatest talent is for acting. He's the consumate modern politician, who is sincere about nothing but the need to achieve power and hold on to it. To do that he'll appear to offer something for everyone, while spectacularly reverting to Tory type if elected. How to sum him up? Look no further than the big black gas-guzzler that tails his bicycle. Even his daily commute is a spin-job.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Aug 17, 2008, 17:43
|
||
|
head-first wrote: How to sum him up? Look no further than the big black gas-guzzler that tails his bicycle. Even his daily commute is a spin-job. Really? I hadn't noticed that as such, but no way did I believe that he was out there doing it like all the 'ordinary people'. He actually deserves a mass pillorying for that one alone. How do you begin? I'm watching some repeats of Yes Minister right now, and by christ it is probably the most perceptive things that's ever been on tv (one of anyway). Some of the issues and 'concerns' have shifted slighlty, but it's still the same old bollocks. x
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 18, 2008, 13:14
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: I know loads of people who wont get a job as they are better of on the dole Can you agree that there are more people than jobs? (As there are 1.6 million unemployed, that seems like you can) Can you agree that there are always going to be more people than jobs? If so, we face several options, and I'm wondering which you'd consider best; 1) We make the large pool of unemployed play musical chairs for the smaller pool of jobs 2) We remove benefits from those without a job 3) We find those who can live full and contented lives on the bare minimum, and give them dole, focusing our benefits budget on those who actually want help into work. As an employer, I find it extraordinary that there are more people than jobs (as you claim, I don't know the figures so cant agree or disagree). I'm always struggling to fill positions for good fairly well paid jobs. In my experience, there is a lack of suitable people to fill the positions available. To me, this means a huge retraining program is in order - I simply can not accept that anyone who doesn't need to should spend their whole lives on benefit, without giving something back. Does that make me a Nazi, or worse a tory?? I have no idea. The idea that we should find people that want to do nothing all day, at the expense of everyone else is awful, to me. I'd love to do fuck all, but I have a family and I have to work.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
