Yes, yes. A thousand times yes!!

[Mr Mystery]

Just having a browse on the BBC website, when I found this article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19792066

I have been hoping this might happen for some time. For the work blocked, it's discussing public support for a UK food stamps type thing for those living on benefits.

Now, word of warning, the article itself isn't great, presenting as it does fairly polarised opinions.

But, I do like the principal of this. The card could, would and in my opinion SHOULD prevent the purchase of luxuries. Tobacco, Alcohol, Gambling, all luxuries. You want them, go earn them. You shouldn't be getting them from the state, as you simply do not need them to survive. And it annoys me when (slightly hyperbolic I know) you see people on benefits with the latest DVDs, or worse Bluray films. Simply put, I do not believe that benefits should provide that sort of disposable income.

However, that would have to come at a price. For instance, state funded childcare should be reintroduced. The costs of childcare mean for many on benefits, finding work just doesn't pay. That is a truly ludicrous situation. When I was a nipper (1983 to be precise) I went to Nursery, right up until I started school. Not only did it mean Mumsie Mystery could get a part time job (adding an income to Daddykins Mystery's full time wage) but it meant I was already learning. Surely, perhaps even clearly, that is a win/win situation? Even if the parents don't get a job, the kid is getting an early education, and socialising with other kids.

Why we don't have this is a mystery to me. When you have a job, spend your cash on whatever you like, that's your right. But when for whatever reason you find yourself dependant on state aid, don't expect a particularly glamorous standard of living!

As an addition and to encourage people into work, offer state provided job roles whereby you can earn some luxuries money. Offer the minimum wage equivalent. Jobs can range from gardening public areas to assisting with childcare (CRB's allowing of course).

What is I feel beyond refute is that the current system needs an overhaul!

[DarkLink]

I've got a friend who works for Costco here in California. Over here, apparently a significant number of food stamps go to alcohol, and then they buy cheap junk food with the leftovers.

Fundamentally, the flaw with welfare in general is that the poor don't need a paycheck, they need a means of providing for themselves. That means a job, not a welfare check. Teach a man to fish, and all that. Welfare checks are a poor substitute.

[Mr Mystery]

They are, which is why I feel they should go back to be a stop gap.

The whole point of Britain's welfare originally was as a safety net to help those in need whilst they found new work. It's somewhat mutated since then. I know it might seem a bit brutal, but overall they should not be the equal of working for your money.

I'm not wanting this to turn too party political, as the various governments have all done their bit to get us where we are today. But something has to be done. If you offer an easy way out such as a life on benefits, of course some are going to exploit it.

There's talk in the linked article of making it a sort of charge card, which can't be used for certain things. And I am fully in favour of restrictions being applied.

[ElectricPaladin]

Yeah... I basically think you're right. I'm a teacher, and I often think that public assistance should be like scaffolding. You don't just say "kids, do this project!" You work them up to it with successively more complex projects and increasing independence. By college, the students should be able to do all sorts of things - take notes, write papers, perform experiments - that they can't do in middle school. If we assume that ending up on public assistance means that somewhere along the line something went wrong, then we should use public assistance to help people learn what they need to learn.

On the other hand...

People on public assistance are grownups. Whether we like it or not, the way our society works is that grownups only have to learn if they want to. You can't make them in the same way that you can make kids learn (well, try to, anyway...). I'm leery of a system that tries to infantilize people based on their degree of economic achievement. This brings me to my second point...

I don't think that the assumption that everyone on economic assistance needs to be protected from bad choices is fair. Sometimes it's just bad luck or the rampant unfairness of our system. Put yourself in someone else's shoes: your industry dries up, you get injured and can't do your job anymore, or the economy just hits a bump and you're one of the ones who falls off the wagon. Is it really ok that now in addition to being forced to rely on the dubious kindness of the government, you also can't buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes? Once you strip away the assumption that people on public assistance are screw-ups, it just seems cruel.

[Mr Mystery]

In Britain, we have a separate diability benefit. Actually, we have two. Their's incapacity for when you suffer an injury you'll recover from, and Diability Living Allowance for the permanent cases.

Disability living allowance is there primarily for those who not so much can't work, but are limited in terms of the fields they can work in to ensure a certain standard of living. Many disabled people would love to work, but physically (or indeed mentally) cannot. This I have no problem with. Their disability shouldn't be a disbarment to normal adult life. After all, there but for the grace of a celestial being I don't personally believe in go I. At least not yet (I could get squished by a car, and be wheelchair bound following, with a brian injury....)

But for those who just don't have a job, and nothing really preventing them from working, benefits should not present as a long term alternative. The problem might well be massively overstated but there do exist those who have never worked. Straight from school into the dole queue, and there they remain until death. And it's that we need to tackle. Yes, it could well create 'haves and have-nots'. But are you really a have-not, or are you more a 'could have by getting off my arse'.

To go with this, we do need to reassess the overall pay. Hell, I'm 32 and landed my first job with an actual living wage this year after several years of trying. But apart from brief periods of unemployment, I've never depended on benefits. And even then I got something like £65 a week at most. And I do not begrudge my taxes going to help less fortuitous people. But when it's getting to the end of the month, and I'm wandering around town with little money left, it gets right on my tits when I see the same old long term benefit claimants yet again pissed up on cheap booze being a nuisance.

Want booze? Want smokes? Want a nice telly like what I have, THEN GET A JOB. Your benefits should not extend to luxuries. Ever.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Elephant in the room: what happens when there's no jobs (such as in a recession) and wages have been stagnant for about thirty years (as a result of deliberate political and economic decisions)? The problem right now isn't welfare, it's employment. Rights, wages and even jobs themselves have been cut and scaled back. Lots of people are being fired right now. It's all very well to say "get a job", and there's a discussion to be had on welfare and benefits, but there's so much more going on than just "people are lazy/unmotivated/scroungers".

Unfortunately the latter is the narrative peddled by the sorts of people who don't want you to pay attention to the real problems - like where all that money's been going for thirty years of neoliberal economics.

[eldargal]

While I support food stamps up to a point (for families to ensure children get good food not just junk food rubbish), you simply can't take away peoples right to spend their money how they see fit based on a minority who abuse it.

[Wolfshade]

While I support food stamps up to a point (for families to ensure children get good food not just junk food rubbish), you simply can't take away peoples right to spend their money how they see fit based on a minority who abuse it.
I suppose that that is a kin to your employer saying what you may and may not spend money on.
Since we can't take away the right for people to spend their money, we should just take away their money.
Interesting, it has been said many a time that Britian during rationing was at its healthest, while that isn't just down to the food available (1 war time apple is nutrionally worth about 4 now apples), but people were physically active, no sitting down watching TV for 10 hrs straight, and arguably there was a better sense of community.

[Psychosplodge]

Mine already does that, everytime you buy anything, or go on holiday he's questioning the cost, and he reckons if you can afford that he's paying you too much...

[eldargal]

That would be worse, again it means punishing most people for whom the safety is net is just that over the actions of a minority who exploit it.


Since we can't take away the right for people to spend their money, we should just take away their money.

[Wolfshade]

It is not a safety net. It is a prop for the work shy. There is no way that the standard of living of someone on benefits should be better than those who earn minimum wage. I look along my road, it is mostly council housing, I am one of the few people that have brought my house, I earn significiantly more than minimum wage but can I afford to have sky sports, a 50" TV (not that I would want one) the latest trainers and all branded clothes, no.

I think categorically it should be a safety net, it should enable people to survive, but not to thrive. A comedian quipped (I think it was a live at the apollo) that he could get a job work for 8 hours a day and save up to by a giant plasma tv, or he could just get it on benefits, may as well cut out the middle man and then he'd have an extra 8 hours to watch it a day.

There is a significant difference between someone who has been made redundant and cannot find a job, their skill set has become obsolete for instance, and school drop outs.
What we are seeing is more and more people for whom benefits are a way of life, not a safety net. Take Wales for example, there are former coal miniming communities that have grandparents who are 30, there are those whose parents and grandparents have never worked and that cycle needs to be broken.

The biggest difficulty is deciding for whom it is worth. Take this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185 for example,
they are spending £240 on shopping each week, now I broke this down to see what the price of the "200 cigarettes, 24 cans of larger and a large pouch of tobacco" would cost and that is somewhere between £90 - £130 (using tesco online shopping prices, cheaper prices are available)" but that is somewehere between £4k - £7k a year on those "essentials" and that is not including the £20 a week spent on going down the pub. They are spending more on these "essentials" then I do on my mortage! I would love to have such disposable income and have sky movies (another essential),

[Psychosplodge]

If you notice in the original link it's 18-24 year olds that are most in favour of this,

One of the most striking findings of the Demos survey was that 18-24-year-olds were one of the most likely age groups to call for government controls on how benefits are spent.

You think that's because they're the ones currently seeing their former fellow school attendees playing the system?

[Wolfshade]

I did not notice that.
I also wonder if it is coincidental that 18-24 year olds are drinking less and smoking less than their predcessors

[Denzark]

While I support food stamps up to a point (for families to ensure children get good food not just junk food rubbish), you simply can't take away peoples right to spend their money how they see fit based on a minority who abuse it.

That's the whole point Mme L'EG. If it was 'their' money ie earnt by the sweat of their brow in good honest employment then of course said right couldn't or shouldn't be taken away.

But the point is for lazy work shy dole swingers, arguably the money they get is not 'their' money it is the money of us taxpayers. If they can afford alcohol and cigarettes they are getting too much so cut the money. Alternately , set up a system in which they cannot spend it on alcohol and cigarettes.

Also other non-essential luxuries: Sky TV, Broadband, PCs, etc. All have free access to libraries which have the internet for jobs etc so no problem there.

And cut their money too I say. And also make them do things like sweep the streets or some other community service. No one should get something for nothing.

[eldargal]

Yes but the fact remains you are punishing ALL people on benefits for the abuses of a few. Collective punishment is not an appropriate response to anything. I mean what you are arguing would mean that someone on benefits isn't allowed to go down to the public house for a pint just because he is on benefits, regardless of whether he abuses the system or not. You can't treat an entire, disparate group of people (benefit recipients) like they are children based on the perceived abuses of a few.

Then there is the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that welfare leads to fewer people working according to most reports, which get conveniently ignored. This whole thing smacks of people attacking people they perceive as lazy based on nothing more than perception and Daily Mail articles. The only real report done into this subject was in 2009, Has Welfare Made Us Lazy? Employment Commitment in Different Welfare States (http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/british-social-attitudes-25th/n4.xml) by Ingrid Esser of Stockholm University which found that unemployment was lower in countries with generous welfare systems than it was in those with more limited/lass generous systems.

I have a friend who was on benefits for a long time because he couldn't work. He did not drink excessively nor smok at all, he spent most of his money on food and rent. But he saved as much as he could to spend on video games, DVDs and a couple of other hobbies just to keep himself sane. If he was restricted to buying essentials he probably would have ended up killing himself out of boredom.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

If wages were better (and if they had climbed in accordance with productivity gains since 1980) and there were more jobs, there would be fewer people on welfare. But as it is, political and economic decisions were taken which saw the wealth created from those productivity gains siphoned disproportionately upwards to those who were already wealthy, while wages for the average worker stagnated. And now we have a recession and massive unemployment - which will rise as public services are cut, and those cuts will also hurt people who were relying on them to be able to get another job. Stuff like training and support, but also transport and other things. It all has a knock-on effect.

But the people responsible have been peddling a narrative that it's about those who are "workshy" or "lazy". It isn't. The genuinely "lazy", and the real cheats are a vanishingly small minority. And what they take in terms of welfare payments is tiny in comparison to the likes of wealthy corporations who don't pay their taxes, who squirrel away money in avoidance schemes and offshore accounts, and of course all those who have enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else.

A version of this narrative also runs that says that because the private sector was allowed to stop providing pension funds and other workplace benefits as well as not paying people any more in wages, then the public sector pensions must also go. It's illogical. What we should be striving for is as many people living in a happy and secure fashion, not racing to the bottom like this.

It's called divide and rule, it's the oldest trick in the book, but damn if people don't fall for it every. Gorram. Time.

Welfare ain't the solution, but it's not actually the problem either. If people honestly believe that work should be rewarded (and who doesn't think that?), then they should be asking themselves why it is not and what economic and political situations have made it this way, instead of pouring scorn and misery on those less well off than themselves.

[Wildeybeast]

Not sure why this is an even issue in the UK. Within a year or two there won't be any benefit payments the way the government is slashing them. Virtually no one qualifies for DLA any more and anyone on it for longer than a year will have their payments withdrawn. Not sure about unemployment benefits, but given the whole 'work for free' scheme they got going it won't be around much longer either.

[Mr Mystery]

Yeah. Not a fan of that plan. Indentured servitude is a kind term for it..

If someone is working, then pay them. Offset that by their current benefits to make it work for the businesses taking part. But 'work for your benefits in a role which would otherwise pay you' is frankly morally abhorrent!

[Denzark]

@ EG - I don't see what is being discussed as a punishment. I see it merely as not subsidising luxuries for people who cannot provide them for themselves. I agree there should be welfare. But if you rely on the state it should be a hand-to-mouth, subsistence only living. I would actually give them free TV licenses and a crappy 14" TV. They would not have 32" plasma screens and sky TV. Why should my consumption of alcohol and tobacco depend on me, whereas the consumption of said items by dole claimants also relies on me - and everyone else who has a job and pays taxes.

Yes let them have enough to survive - but that is it.

[DarkLink]

Elephant in the room: what happens when there's no jobs (such as in a recession) and wages have been stagnant for about thirty years (as a result of deliberate political and economic decisions)? The problem right now isn't welfare, it's employment.

That is the problem. Which is why I find it odd when people try to address the unemployment issue by 'raising taxes and improving welfare benefits'. They're ignoring the real problem, while trying to soothe over the problem so no one else notices it either.

I do know some people who have legitimately gotten screwed over, and were able to use a handout to get themselves back on their feet. On the other hand, entire ghettos are living in poverty across generational lines thanks to welfare checks. The answer to the latter problem is not 'we need to improve welfare', it's 'we need to figure out how to get these people jobs'.

[eldargal]

But the problem is how do you determine what is subsiding luxuries or what isn't? Is a chap going down to the public houe for a wekly pint abusing his benefits? If another saves up over a few years to buy a big television is that really a problem? How many people actually abuse the system? All we see is accusations and everyone assumes they ar true but I've never seen any actual evidence of systematic waste of benefit payments on luxuries. I've no doubt some do it, but even if they do it still doesn't warrant punishing (and preventing people from buying things is punishment) ALL of them for the actions of a few.

Even with food stamps, how do you manage that? You mandate 25% of beneifts be paid in foodstamps, well what happens if a family can't reduce its expednitude on food and end up being unable to pay a gas or electricity bill? How do you determine what they buy, do you base it on nutritional allowance? Does this mean they can never, ever have cake or biscuits while they are on benefits? Is meat a luxury? Can they not even get a child some junk food for a birthday party? Etc. etc.

It's very easy to talk about blanket solutions to fix problems in welfare but they never seem particularly well thought out and I've never even seeen any evidence of the sort of widespread abuses that are believed to exist.

@ EG - I don't see what is being discussed as a punishment. I see it merely as not subsidising luxuries for people who cannot provide them for themselves. I agree there should be welfare. But if you rely on the state it should be a hand-to-mouth, subsistence only living. I would actually give them free TV licenses and a crappy 14" TV. They would not have 32" plasma screens and sky TV. Why should my consumption of alcohol and tobacco depend on me, whereas the consumption of said items by dole claimants also relies on me - and everyone else who has a job and pays taxes.

Yes let them have enough to survive - but that is it.

[Denzark]

I don't see a weekly pint or even a ciggy as an abuse. It is purely a luxury. But i don't think benefits should fund luxuries - no matter how long they save for them. It should be only sufficient to survive on. Personally I wouldn't pay housing benefits either. I would use a lot of the old barracks that are now defunct with defence cuts, and move people in there. Let them have free lighting and heating and accomodation. Let them live in the cramped condition our soldiers live in. let them have merely enough money to survive on. Where there is insufficient barracks, build more - that would spur the economy. Also build some for the MPs to live in in London during parliament sitting.

Stop funding anything beyond what is needed to survive - because the state can't afford to do it anymore - unless we cut international aid 100%.

[Psychosplodge]

I certainly would support the building of a dorm for MP's stopping in London, To be built to no higher standard than student dorms.

[MaltonNecromancer]

I was going to point out that whole "let's treat the poor like they're children" thing was a bit much, but then Eldargal came along and made all my points for me. I just think that if a rich idiot can spend insane money on this atrocity, then the poor should likewise be extended the same rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/26/fowl-extravagance-crispin-odey-chicken-house

Of course, it's easy to demonise "the poor" and "those on benefits" when the actual picture is really quite complicated and a bit darker than just "poor people deserve it because they are all obviously lazy".

My main thought is about politicians and their second homes. I like the idea that we shouldn't give politicians any expenses money for travel/housing/etc... They should get vouchers for free council housing on the roughest estates, a free pass that allows them to use any public transport at no charge, and force them to use the services that the poorest have to use.

I wonder how quickly those services would improve...? :)

[Mr Mystery]

I certainly would support the building of a dorm for MP's stopping in London, To be built to no higher standard than student dorms.

Admiralty Arch. I believe that's currently unused. Bung the MPs in there. Have '10 Downing Street' equivalent for each constituency. No more greedy expenses that way.

[Denzark]

I was going to point out that whole "let's treat the poor like they're children" thing was a bit much, but then Eldargal came along and made all my points for me. I just think that if a rich idiot can spend insane money on this atrocity, then the poor should likewise be extended the same rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/26/fowl-extravagance-crispin-odey-chicken-house

Of course, it's easy to demonise "the poor" and "those on benefits" when the actual picture is really quite complicated and a bit darker than just "poor people deserve it because they are all obviously lazy".

My main thought is about politicians and their second homes. I like the idea that we shouldn't give politicians any expenses money for travel/housing/etc... They should get vouchers for free council housing on the roughest estates, a free pass that allows them to use any public transport at no charge, and force them to use the services that the poorest have to use.

I wonder how quickly those services would improve...? :)

Lets not confuse 'the poor' with those people on benefits. There are people that I would argue are poor, living hand to mouth, from their own wages. There are many who have a similar standard of living to those on benefits - or even worse. It is a fact that it is possible to work the hours which makes you ineligible for benefits (say 16 or 18 hours) and get less money then what doing nothing and just taking benefits, would get you. If you are poor but in work, ie what you see in your bank account is yours, then truly, do what you like with it. Spend it all on booze and let the kids starve, whatever, you've earnt it.

However if that money in your bank is given purely by the state, it is reasonable for the state to do one of 2 things:

1. Mandate it cannot be spent on unecessary luxury items such as booze or *****.

or

2. Reduce the level so that the individual cannot afford to spend it on anything beyond surviving.

Given not 100% of those in receipt are self disciplined enough to spend the money on essentials and not on luxuries, then option 1 is a catchall to ensure 100% compliance.

If we lived in a country where there were no jobs at all, I might view things differently. But whereas some people will lose their well paid middle management jobs and do anything even clean macdonalds toilets, to put food on plates, others will do nothing but take take take. If you make that option deeply uncomfortable and pure survival levels of existence, it might influence a few of them.

With the mother in-law working in a job centre I am quite exposed to the realities of employment in this country. Quite simply not all people will not see any employment no matter how menial, as better than being unemployed.

And Malty don't quote the Grauniad for pete's sake its got less substance than that brother-back-stabbing maggot Miliband's speech.

[Psychosplodge]

Somebody actually works in a job centre? I've never experienced seeing anyone do anything in one before in the two periods I've had to frequent them.

[eldargal]

But here is the issue, you cannot try and force people to take responsibility for their own lives by treating them like idiots who can't be trusted to buy the necessities they need. Especially with there being no firm scientific data on how widespread abuse is. You also cannot punish everyone on benefits for the actions of a few, especially when as said we have no idea how many are actually abusing the system. You would also be punishing people who are on benefits because they can't work, regardless of whether they want to or not.

What needs to be done is linking benefits to wages rather than inflation (I believe this change will occur early next year, linking it to wages anyway) and more needs to be done to crack down on those who ARE cheating on benefits, not introducing expensive, difficult to enforce blanket policies on what people can and cannot spend their money on.

Then there is the fact that tax evasion by those who do work exceeds the cost of benefit fraud fifteen fold (http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274), workers clearly aren't all noble. Maybe we should punish taxpayers while we're at it.:rolleyes:

[Psychosplodge]

Then there is the fact that tax evasion by those who do work exceeds the cost of benefit fraud fifteen fold, workers clearly aren't all noble. Maybe we should punish taxpayers while we're at it.
Lets face it though, that's the self employed and high earners, I know several people that on paper earn less than me, but in reality as they're self employed pay little to no tax.

[eldargal]

Doesn't matter, if it's ok to punish everyone on benefits for the abuses of a few it's ok to punish all taxpayers for the abuses of a few.

[Psychosplodge]

Well they already do it to the motorist so why not, in fact lets just punish everyone...

[Denzark]

Eldargal you have never before struck me as a component of the victim culture. Lets lose the idea of punishment from the equation. I believe group punishments are wrong. However, take any safety feature such as childproof lids on pill bottles. Do I think it a group punishment affecting clever children who either through their own intelligence or discipline instilled by parents won't take what's inside - No because child proof caps aren't there to stop them taking the pink smarties - its for those who are incapable of this clever, self preserving behaviour.

As it would be to stop benefit money being spent on alcohol and tobacco. Some people would naturally not do this, some people on the other hand spend large proportions of it down the pub - whilst leaving their malnourished children in soiled nappies in the care of inappropriate teenagers spawned in other failed relationships.

Actually I would be MORE in favour of some system that distinguishes between say, a business man who has paid NI stamps for 35 years before being made redundant because of the financial state of affairs, and a sink estate waster who has never worked and has no intention of doing so. Some sort of certificate of civic and social responsibility. Hell, I am in favour of Starship Troopers-esque citizenship rules. However becuase this is probably beyond the ability of any governement to get past the bleeding heart social engineering that seems to prevail today, it is easier to restrict what the money can be spent on - NO luxury items. Its not immoral or unfair. Money one puts in one's own pocket, can be spent on anything. Money from the state is your emergency survival fund.

[eldargal]

Eldargal you have never before struck me as a component of the victim culture.

Because I'm not, but you are advocating the collective punishment of everyone on benefits because around 1% break the rules. Its insane, frankly. Your analogy to child proof bottles is completely irrelevent because under no circumstances can that be considered punishment of anyone, it is simply a safety feature. Dictating how an entire group of people spend their money based on the perceived abuses of a tiny minority is not a safety feature, it is brutality.

Bleeding hearts and social engineering have nothing to do with it (I'm against the ridiculous social engineering projects that resulted in the ghettoisation of the working class and migrant communites as much as anyone) but what you are talking about is immoral. You would need compelling evidence of massive benefits of abuse to justify what you are arguing, and it simply doesn't exist because the problem is hugely overstated. It is the product a culture now where it is fine to condemn someone based only on the fact they are poor and the flimsiest of anecdotal evidences.

I am completely in favour of harsh penalties for benefit cheats, programs to get people off benefits and back working wherever possible, keeping wages above benefits and I don't even object to limited foodstamps to ensure that people on benefits are getting some decent food in their diet. But I will never support the collective punishment of everyone on benefits because of the crimes of a minority.


Hell, I am in favour of Starship Troopers-esque citizenship rules
I really hope this is a joke. You might as well move to Russia if it isn't.

I like you Denzark and have a lot of respect for you but on this we will never agree. I want government policy to try and get people to take responsibility for their lives, not take more away from them by telling them they can't be trusted to spend their own benefit money.

[MaltonNecromancer]

This article seemed relevant.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-humanity-desperately-wants-monsters-to-be-real/?fb_action_ids=10151264284520030&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210151264284520030%22%3A45163 1141553717}&action_type_map={%2210151264284520030%22%3A%22og.l ikes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

I mean, personally, I'd make smoking and drinking illegal as I think the problems they bring outweigh the enjoyment, only I know that banning them makes things worse - the world ill needs another Al Capone. But my personal opinions aren't worth a thing in the end. Stopping people on benefits "wasting" their money is so far down the list of things that are wrong with this world, it's not even funny.

How about redressing the grotesque societal inequalities that exist in the first place? Do that and the problem goes away on its own.

EDIT: just found this article too. Also seems relevant.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/the_thrill_of_blaming_others/

[Wolfshade]

It is easy to determine luxuries from essentials, luxuries you pay VAT on...

[Psychosplodge]

So the only necessary clothes are work safety gear O_o?

[Denzark]

Oh sheeit this is getting serious.

@ Malty

I read both articles. Interesting. With regard to scapegoats, I personally don't think of either the poor, or those on benefits (lets make a distinction) as scapegoats. I don't think they have enough power and therefore influence, in society, to be held to blame for something. If you can accept that point for myself, we need to follow onto what exactly do you think some or all of society blames the poor or those on benefits, for?

Because I am not aware that there is a big blame of relevance to society's ills directed at them. I understand this debate to be based on an article showing increasing support for an idea that benefits should be managed in some way so that they cannot be spent on luxuries. Again, you use the term 'their money'- I argue that people can only claim money is theirs when they earn it themselves. I'm not saying there isn't an entitlement but it is not earnt by work. You next argue that someone who has paid NI can say they have contributed. I then say that qualifying benefits as 'earnt' on this basis is a litle tenuous. But even so, the country should not be supporting people in the purchase of luxury items. Why should people out of work have their ability to buy booze and tabs they have not got the money for, subsidised? Does that mean I am equally entitled to have a subsidiy towards my next bottle of Warre's 85 Port, or a Jaguar XF?

The cracked.com article is very good - but as evidence seems to have been shoe-horned into the argument. Showing me a picture of a burning nightclub, asking how I rage about Muslim terrorism in Bali then saying 'A Ha! had you, it is just a fire somewhere' is a bit trite. Again, I am not sure all poor/benefits claimants are seen as monsters by society in the same way the Japs were in WWII (btw Nagasaki and Hiroshima were well deserved and militarily acceptable).

@ EG thank you for your kind words Ma'm the feeling is entirely mutual. I wouldn't see the imposing of limitations on benefits as a punishment - I think your use of the word 'safety feature' fits how I see it. At the end of the day safety features must always be aimed at the lowest common denominator. In the military where I work, some things are pitched at a level for the thickest, illiterate Infantry killer from a commonwealth country (lo english skills, no other denigration implied). For personnel in the more technical trades, you just have to go with it.

Actually i don't see persons spending benefits money on booze and faags in the current climae, as an abuse! I really don't - it is allowed, so they are not abusing it. Its just that that indicates to me that they are clearly getting too much. If you say they aren't, its just some choose to ***** this money on their own social lives and not on say nutritional food for kids, or books to educate them etc. Well unfortunately its the lowest common denominator again - legislation to safeguard against this will necessarily affect others who are more circumspect.

Maybe a sliding scale, ie first year on benefits = full control, 5th year = the government runs your life stand by to eat only rice and drink only water. i don't know, but in the same way harsher prison conditions are needed for a deterrent*, harsher benefit conditions would act a s a deterrent from languishing on the benefits.

Of course we may need to pull out of the dying EU behemoth, so that eastern European nations cannot take over all our manual/agricultural jobs, so there is increased employment opportunities but that is a different argument.

Whilst I'm not sure Russia = Starship Troopers I may have been indulging myself in a little hyperbole. I'm sure I would look awesome if my uniform was a slightly blacker outfit though ha.

In terms of this debate I can fall back on my favourite Voltaire quote: I may not agree with what you are saying but i will defend to the death your right to say it.




* This opinion is repeatedly raised by actual genuine lags in prison. as a primary source my venerable Mother (more formidable than a venerable Dreadnought) has been told this on several occasions - she was working as a prison library manager.

[Psychosplodge]

Why should people out of work have their ability to buy booze and tabs they have not got the money for, subsidised? Does that mean I am equally entitled to have a subsidiy towards my next bottle of Warre's 85 Port, or a Jaguar XF?


Put me down for an XF as well, they're soooooooo pretty...



Whilst I'm not sure Russia = Starship Troopers I may have been indulging myself in a little hyperbole. I'm sure I would look awesome if my uniform was a slightly blacker outfit though ha.
Well they may have been a gang of cnuts, but the Black SS uniforms did look sh!t hot

[MaltonNecromancer]

I don't think they have enough power and therefore influence, in society, to be held to blame for something.

With respect, I don't think you've thought that statement through at all. Their lack of power and influence is what allows them to be held accountable. The simple fact that benefit fraud and tax avoidance/tax evasion are regarded as somehow different things is proof. In each case, one human being acquires more money from society than if fair to them, one by removing it from the pool, and one by not adding it to the pool. In either case, the whole of society is worse off, yet we don't hold the rich to the same level of account, largely because they can afford better lawyers (as well as controlling the media *coughRupertMurdochforthelastfewdecadescough*)

I once again quote Reginald D Hunter on Batman:

“I don’t respect the concept of Batman because of what I understand about politics and that.
I’m going to lay it out for you: rich dude owns a corporation, has state of the art equipment and he uses this to beat up on street level crime. He doesn’t mess with the industrialists or the super capitalists, the Murdock or the Trumps... He’d rather just [REDACTED] with the purse snatchers on the corner! Batman is a conservative's wet dream! [REDACTED] Batman!” - Reginald D Hunter, "Have I Got News For You".

We go after the poor because they are obviously not as "strong" as the rich.

I believe society has to look after everyone, and I believe that means spending our money on people, and I accept that the price of this is that sometimes the people who recieve my money may be less than deserving. I accept that as the price, because the alternative is to punish those who ARE deserving. I refuse to fall into the perfect system fallacy of believing that there is a system that only punishes the wicked and rewards the just - the world demonstrably will never work that way.

The price of helping the weak is that sometimes you will be taken advantage of. You can retreat into contempt, or accept that as the price of doing the right thing. I do not believe that denying those on benefits the right to spend their money in ways that they, as adults, see fit, is anything but paternalistic, arrogant cruelty.

Of course, I am a massive socialist when it comes to social issues and concerns, so I'm never going to be on the side of self-interest and private capital.

[eldargal]

Well I do support private capital and do not trust socialists (socialists murdered a fair chunk of my family and then went on to murder millions of the people they were supposed to look after) but I still don't support punishing those least able to defend themselves.;)

I accept that some of my tax money that ultimately ends up as benefit payouts may end up being wasted. I am willing to accept that because much more of it will actually go on necessities like food, gas, electricity and chocolate. I wholeheartedly support measures aimed at stopping and punishing people from taking more than their fair share from the system, but I will never accept policies that take away areound ten percent of the populaces ability to choose what they buy with their money based on the actions of a few.

[Kyban]

Well I do support private capital and do not trust socialists (socialists murdered a fair chunk of my family and then went on to murder millions of the people they were supposed to look after) but I still don't support punishing those least able to defend themselves.;)

Can they really be called socialists at that point? I don't think there has ever been a real socialist society, just a lot of countries that falsely claimed to be socialist.

I guess the real problem is determining who deserves the help and who doesn't, not an easy thing to do and prone to corruption but there are certainly people who deserve and need the leg up. It really isn't fair if they get denied it because others aren't responsible and while life isn't fair, governments should be.

[Denzark]

Of course, I am a massive socialist when it comes to social issues and concerns, so I'm never going to be on the side of self-interest and private capital.

Oh come now Malty we all know socialism is a diluted form of Communism and look where that got the world. You're an English Teacher, have a look at Animal Farm... rather than some Timberlake Wertenbaker crap or whatever is in vogue.

My comment about not having enough power and influence meant they haven't actually DONE anything to be held to blame for, not that they aren't an ideal target.

Anyway, society does have to look after people, correctamundo.

But why can't they be given rubber plimsolls, grey jumpsuits, water and rice by society, and kept in massive barracks? That is being looked after. Works for your Chinese comlades in the good ole' People's Republic. I don't think people should be able to expect anything other than a survival standard of living. I don't think we can afford anything else. My pension is in the middle of getting whacked, how's it working out for you?

Still think your disruptive pupils, the ones whose parents never attend parents evening (too busy spending their dole money on beer and ****) or make them do homework, who get an e in computing and thats it, who become a NEET as a lifestyle choice, who disrupt your lessons to the detriment of those lower-middle class, above poverty line kids who try like mad because their mum and dad believe in aspiration and self help, should automatically get benefits they can spend on Elizabeth Duke jewellery, cheap nike air, kappa hoodies and White Lightning and Marlboro?

[eldargal]

Well, when virtually every country that has claimed to be socialists has either committed genocide or restricted the freedom of its populace in order to stay in power I think it is fair to say something is wrong the core belief system.:)

Well I quite like the idea of using defunct military barracks and such like as community housing, if it is practical. But beyond that we can't strive to force people to take responsibility for their lives by taking more away. It's just not as simple as 'give them the bare necessities to encourage them to work'. Some of them literally can not work, others may be poorly educated and have no skills that they are aware of, others simply can't find work.

[Kyban]

Well, when virtually every country that has claimed to be socialists has either committed genocide or restricted the freedom of its populace in order to stay in power I think it is fair to say something is wrong the core belief system.:)

The problem is the "claimed to be" part, if you name a "socialist" state generally you can name the guy in charge, as a result it has a lot of stigma attached to it. Socialism does have some decent ideas but it has never been implemented correctly and it is nearly impossible to do so.



There is also a fine line between helping people get jobs and forcing them into work, a very important line.

[MaltonNecromancer]

we all know socialism is a diluted form of Communism and look where that got the world.

False equivelance, thus invalid. Socialism is not Communism. Are you your uncle? Your father?

I could point out that the America of the 1950's with its House Unamerican activities investigations was mind-meltingly fascist (which it was) and therefore democracy was fascism. That would be patently false. How about you just agree to stop patronising me and let me believe what I want? :)

If you want the summary of my beliefs, they run thusly:


One Eva Smith has gone - but there are millions and millions and million of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.

Basically, we have technology, communications, shared language, shared interests... we could feed and clothe the world. So why are we so bloody intent on being horrible to each other? We should have jet packs and exoskeletal suits, space craft and off-world colonies, and yet here we are, stuck on this planet, choking it to death with exhaust fumes like caterpillars feeding on the last leaf of the last plant in the desert, convinced we'll be fine because the leaf's pretty big, and what are we doing? We're arguing over who gets to eat the most leaf. How about we share the damn leaf and go explore the universe? Because we could do that. We just choose not to with our stupid obsessions withg having more stuff and better stuff than the other guy. The UN estimates we could provide drinkable water to the whole population that lacks it at a cost of $500 billion. The US spent $600 billion on the Star Wars project alone; a series of orbiting rail cannons that they never even built.

We're wasteful and selfish and it's wrong. It's utterly, utterly wrong.

We're going to be stuck on this planet 'til our smog kills us, and the winners of evolution on planet Earth will be the cockroaches, who wisely invested their XP in being indestructible, rather than intelligence.

If we do not hang together, we will hang separately.


Can they really be called socialists at that point? I don't think there has ever been a real socialist society, just a lot of countries that falsely claimed to be socialist.

This. So, so much. Orwell made this point in "1984" Denzark; it's the slightly better companion piece to "Animal Farm". Monsters never call themselves monsters. Look at William the Conqueror; that's not what the English called him...


think your disruptive pupils, the ones whose parents never attend parents evening (too busy spending their dole money on beer and ****) or make them do homework, who get an e in computing and thats it, who become a NEET as a lifestyle choice, who disrupt your lessons to the detriment of those lower-middle class, above poverty line kids who try like mad because their mum and dad believe in aspiration and self help, should automatically get benefits they can spend on Elizabeth Duke jewellery, cheap nike air, kappa hoodies and White Lightning and Marlboro?

Straw Man argument.

I hate to tell you this... but you have NO idea what the kids I teach are like. These people you describe are ones I've never met. I've met NEET pupils, but they always have real, serious reasons for it, and deserve nothing but sympathy. Even the foul ones. A monster is made, not born.

Teaching forces you to teach every pupil as an individual. Every. Single. One. And they're all different. There's no such thing as "normal people", just a massive variety of fascinating, amazing individuals. I've taught for ten years, and I've taught real, serious disadvantaged people. Some of them have grown up to be complete failures as human beings. Some of them have grown up to be some of the bravest and noblest people I have ever met. To succeed if life is an achievement. To succeed in life when you parents are all kinds of messed up, leave you to raise your siblings, beat you, abuse you...

I have seen such pupils achieve, yes through strength of character, but also financial support from the government. I invite you to consider that painting all of them with the same brush dehumanises them all, and makes them all equal to the lowest common denominator of your straw man argument.

There are issues to be considered in the distribution of benefits, but don't mistake your sweeping generalisations for anything other than the comfortable justifications that they are. Just because you look out the window and see black birds does not mean all birds are black. Just because some disadvantaged children will be NEETs does not mean all will.

The price of helping the weak is that people will take advantage of you. It is a price that I feel is worth paying, and that you do not.

Herein lies the difference between us.

[Denzark]

Malty, genuine apologies if you think I have been patronising, it was unintentional. The reason we the children of the world haven't 'shared the leaf' is because some state actors behave in a darwinian fashion. They take what they like to the detriment of the whole.

if the strong of the world helped the weak, according to your thoughts, the price would be that the weak would take advantage. But why should a nation state allow itself to be taken advantage of by a weaker nation state? As to your Eva Smith argument, the problem is that someone will always refuse to learn the lesson - the blood fire and anguish has to be the starting point. There is a chicken and egg thing here. Take the UN. The whole concept of 'Peace keeping Troops' fails almost every time. What you need first is 'Peace Making Troops'.

Everyone won't meet a common consensus to just get along because we are all just animals at the end. Some behave like it more than others.

With regards to the price of helping the weak being people will take advantage of you, I don't think I have commented on this concept so you can't say whether or not I think it is a price worth paying. All I am saying is limit the help to the absolute essential - this limits the advantage that can be taken. the weak in this instance should only be grateful that they get something for nothing.

[Denzark]

Hey just to return to this masdebate guess what popped up in Telegraph today. Looks like it could be a reality - also targeted to avoid the 'group punishment' factor as mentioned by Mme L'EG:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9605858/120000-troubled-families-could-be-legally-banned-from-spending-benefits-on-alochol-and-tobacco.html

[Deadlift]

Hey just to return to this masdebate guess what popped up in Telegraph today. Looks like it could be a reality - also targeted to avoid the 'group punishment' factor as mentioned by Mme L'EG:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9605858/120000-troubled-families-could-be-legally-banned-from-spending-benefits-on-alochol-and-tobacco.html

Deny problem family's the ability to buy drink, cigarettes and drugs with their benefits. I thought they generally shoplifted, stole or grew them anyway.

[DarkLink]

The problem is the "claimed to be" part, if you name a "socialist" state generally you can name the guy in charge, as a result it has a lot of stigma attached to it. Socialism does have some decent ideas but it has never been implemented correctly and it is nearly impossible to do so.

The idea that all of the 'X Republic of Y' in the world weren't "true" socialism does nothing to bolster the naive idea that such a system could actually work well. The fact remains that, in the real world, it doesn't really work.

The best you'll ever get is some socialist tendencies in a Republic/Democracy, and even then you have to walk an extremely fine line between function and fiscal collapse.

On the other hand, you take a free Republic/Democracy with a strongly enforced Bill of Rights protecting individual freedoms, not only can you find a plethora of examples throughout history of incredibly prosperous nations, but you can see the path that leads directly to everything that makes our lives so privileged today.

Here's an article I found interesting, rebuffing much of the attitude behind Occupy Wallstreet and similar ideologies: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/06/stop-bashing-rich/?iid=EL

As for peace keeping troops, The Heart and the Fist is a fantastic book. It follows a young American who spent his college years traveling the world volunteering in one third-world country after another. After graduating from Oxford, he realized that in all his years, none of what he did actually addressed the problems he saw. People were being tortured, raped, and murdered all around the world on a massive scale, and he had thought he was helping by slapping a few band-aids on the survivors. He realized that if he truly wanted to help, he had to stop people from doing the torturing, raping, and murdering, and you can't do that with a first aid kit. He joined the SEALs as a result, because he wanted to protect people.


“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

[Wolfshade]

If we've never had a proper socialist state then saying that they don't work in the real world is quite a stretch, as we've never had one so we don't know.
Damn if only the UK had a bill of rights we could have been prosperous.
A nation which is prosperous does not mean that you avoid poverty, for example India is an highly prosperous nation with a vast economy but the poor are dirt poor.
As a slight aside I did find it interesting that both American political parties are members of the conservative international

[eldargal]

A Bill of Rights is basically an admission that you can't trust your governmental system to protect the liberties of your population. I've never really seen why we would need one in Britain.

[White Tiger88]

A Bill of Rights is basically an admission that you can't trust your governmental system to protect the liberties of your population. I've never really seen why we would need one in Britain.

You guy's also don't have America next door............. (Can we borrow some Tanks?)

*cough*

Anyhow back on topicish With out a Bill of Rights how can you Complain about your Rights being Violated?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY

[Mr Mystery]

We have the magma carta.... And not that many right wing religious fruit cakes.

[Wildeybeast]

We have the magma carta.... And not that many right wing religious fruit cakes.

See, I've never got why people laud the Magna Carta as some miraculous breakthrough for human rights. Most of the clauses did sod all for the rights of 90% of the population, nor was it ever intended to. Only three (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19744823) of it's clauses are still in place in English law and they were minor ones in the Charter itself. The Magna Carta was a political document intended to take some power away from the king and give it to the wealthy elite. It is simply one step on the long road towards universal emancipation that has been ongoing since the time of Hammurabi.

[White Tiger88]

See, I've never got why people laud the Magna Carta as some miraculous breakthrough for human rights. Most of the clauses did sod all for the rights of 90% of the population, nor was it ever intended to. Only three (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19744823) of it's clauses are still in place in English law and they were minor ones in the Charter itself. The Magna Carta was a political document intended to take some power away from the king and give it to the wealthy elite. It is simply one step on the long road towards universal emancipation that has been ongoing since the time of Hammurabi.

All i know is Canadian schools force the Magna Carta into everyone's head in Social studies for some reason........Yet i don't even remember wtf it said other then "King u no god!"

[Wildeybeast]

It's important in an historical context because it's the first time an English king (and possibly the first time in Europe) has his powers officially restricted. Though to put it in context, it only happened because King John was woefully inept and he broke it shortly after signing it anyway. It make more sense to view it as the first, tentative step away from an absolute monarchy and towards democracy than as a revolution for human rights. From what I understand, the Americans and French put far more stock in it than we British do because they took it as a guide for setting up a constitution when you've done away with King in violent circumstances.

[White Tiger88]

It's important in an historical context because it's the first time an English king (and possibly the first time in Europe) has his powers officially restricted. Though to put it in context, it only happened because King John was woefully inept and he broke it shortly after signing it anyway. It make more sense to view it as the first, tentative step away from an absolute monarchy and towards democracy than as a revolution for human rights. From what I understand, the Americans and French put far more stock in it than we British do because they took it as a guide for setting up a constitution when you've done away with King in violent circumstances.

Sounds like some head's where rolling :D

[eldargal]

It is really the foundation of common law and also an unprecedented chaining of the power of kings. The idea that Parliament, even it was only the nobility at the time, held sway over the monarch was rather unprecedented and ultimately led to the rejection of Divine Right in Britain mere decades after James I/VI tried to introduce it. So while certainly not as influential in guaranteeing civil liberties as many thing it was a very important legislative and philosophical step towards to our development of constitutional monarchy.

See, I've never got why people laud the Magna Carta as some miraculous breakthrough for human rights. Most of the clauses did sod all for the rights of 90% of the population, nor was it ever intended to. Only three (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19744823) of it's clauses are still in place in English law and they were minor ones in the Charter itself. The Magna Carta was a political document intended to take some power away from the king and give it to the wealthy elite. It is simply one step on the long road towards universal emancipation that has been ongoing since the time of Hammurabi.

King John was really a rather brilliant administrator, the only reason he is unpopular is because his genius for taxation went towards paying for big brothers pointless crusades (before John was king) and later a fruitless attempt to retake Normandy.

[Wildeybeast]

It is really the foundation of common law and also an unprecedented chaining of the power of kings. The idea that Parliament, even it was only the nobility at the time, held sway over the monarch was rather unprecedented and ultimately led to the rejection of Divine Right in Britain mere decades after James I/VI tried to introduce it. So while certainly not as influential in guaranteeing civil liberties as many thing it was a very important legislative and philosophical step towards to our development of constitutional monarchy.


King John was really a rather brilliant administrator, the only reason he is unpopular is because his genius for taxation went towards paying for big brothers pointless crusades (before John was king) and later a fruitless attempt to retake Normandy.

But that is retrospective reading of it. At the time it was nothing more than nobles trying to secure their power in the face of an incompetent king. The nobles didn't actually want to remove the king, they just wanted him to stop being such a knob. They restricted his power (ineffectively as it turned out) because he couldn't be trusted with it, not because they didn't want kings to have it full stop.

He was and is unpopular because whilst have may been a great administrator for Richard, he was a hopeless ruler. In his defence he was faced with more crises than most kings ever were, but he handled every single one of them badly. From losing half of France to enraging the nobles to getting the whole of England excommunicated, he blundered from one disaster to the next and made poor decisions in his handling of all them. He doesn't deserve the vilification history gives him (and his brother doesn't deserve the praise), but he was pretty useless as English kings go. The fact he was forced into the humiliation of having to sign the Magna Carter in the first place tells you all you need to know about how inept he was.

[eldargal]

Of course its retrospective.:p It only gained its reputation retrospectively, at the time it wasn't considered anything hugely significant. Many significant historial events are only significant retrospectively. Beyond being used as a precedent in various power games between the nobles and monarch for centuries it's influence on the culture surrounding the monarchy didn't become apparent unilt much later.

He really wasn't a hopeless ruler, he was able, just rather unlucky and rather flawed personally. Inept is too strong a word.

[Sean_OBrien]

A Bill of Rights is basically an admission that you can't trust your governmental system to protect the liberties of your population. I've never really seen why we would need one in Britain.

Because you can't trust the government to protect liberties which are inconvenient to their politics...

In most places, you can find "rights" eroded on a daily basis by local, regional and federal level politicians. Quite often the talking heads say that it is OK that it is happening though, because it is in the best interests or the greater good.

Whether it is in preventing the populace from being able to protect themselves or preventing the free exchange of ideas (religious, political or other ideas) - most Western countries tend to agree that those are rights, however the vast majority of governments like to limit them to varying degrees through outright bans or various degrees of legislation which labels some ideas as being hateful and illegal.

[eldargal]

I said government system, not government. We have a constitutional monarch who exists solely to keep absolute power out of the hands of politicians/the guvmint of the day and protect our liberties.

[Denzark]

Because you can't trust the government to protect liberties which are inconvenient to their politics...

In most places, you can find "rights" eroded on a daily basis by local, regional and federal level politicians. Quite often the talking heads say that it is OK that it is happening though, because it is in the best interests or the greater good.

Whether it is in preventing the populace from being able to protect themselves or preventing the free exchange of ideas (religious, political or other ideas) - most Western countries tend to agree that those are rights, however the vast majority of governments like to limit them to varying degrees through outright bans or various degrees of legislation which labels some ideas as being hateful and illegal.

Not always a bad thing when society in the play station generation seems to erode the difference between 'rights' and 'duty'.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

WE KNOW OUR DUTEH AND WE WILL DO EET.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeCfod1XT7E

Heroes deaths.

[Wolfshade]

The Magna Carta, with all of its 3? clauses still in place, and they are ones buried deep in the document. It was less about gaining individual freedoms and more about legally consolidating the Barons power base