Do you want to discuss boring politics? (28 Viewers)

LarryGrayson

Active Member
Didn't Ms Raynor say that There are enough houses in the country apparently, just not the ones people want.
if so might be right seems you can get four bed detached all over the place whenever there built but where are the two bed terraces in villages to keep the kids there when they leave home so needs the state to takeover
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
The whole Idea of the welfare state was to help people through short term hard times. It wasn't set up as a lifestyle which for some (too many in my eyes) people it has clearly become.
Currently it promotes a dependance on the state and a care free attitude that someone will pay for their life choices from cradle to grave. Most of us know of at least one person or family who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
This stuff has been said for about 30 years if not longer. That long term unemployment rate isn't that high in the UK and is below the OECD average.

I grew up on a council estate and genuinely don't recall anybody among my neighbours then who fitted that description. I certainly don't know of anybody now who does.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Well they do because some people want to cut off all support as a punishment for not finding work quickly enough.
That’s for people who have to look to work. Just under half of UC do not need to look for work? Therefore, their entitlement does get cut. IMO, this raise is disturbing, do you agree?
I’m all too aware of Elon’s favourite argument. My point is that if the stakes for you are as high as *civilisational collapse*, you should have a very very good reason for opposing policies that would incentivise people to have more children.

The alternative explanation is that you’re not so much interested in “building families” as you are filtering out certain kinds.

Your priorities are lopsided because if we got these people into work, they’d get all the support they need. It’s about creating incentives…

Can you show the workings that show how somebody receiving UC can receive more than somebody working full time on minimum wage?
I’m glad you asked:

When you take NI and IC tax from a minimum wage worker, they come out with 22.5k, sickness benefit will give a claimant 25k. For a lot people, the marginal gain of going out to work is minimal.

Understand this too, the driver for these increases are on mental health, particularly 18-24 year olds. Most of these people are working age and able to work and GPs regularly encourage social interaction rather than isolation. There isn’t a massive cohort of people who are severely sick that cannot work.

Access Restricted
 

LarryGrayson

Active Member
This stuff has been said for about 30 years if not longer. That long term unemployment rate isn't that high in the UK and is below the OECD average.

I grew up on a council estate and genuinely don't recall anybody among my neighbours then who fitted that description. I certainly don't know of anybody now who does.
i no one they live in a shitole id lick better for myself dont envy him
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
This stuff has been said for about 30 years if not longer. That long term unemployment rate isn't that high in the UK and is below the OECD average.

I grew up on a council estate and genuinely don't recall anybody among my neighbours then who fitted that description. I certainly don't know of anybody now who does.
The unemployment rate doesn’t include people of sickness benefits so taking the unemployment rate at face value is deeply flawed. Bearing in mind that includes people with mild anxiety or depression, that’s a lot of people being under the radar.

In reality, unemployment is more like 15%. It’s a massive issue and we’re an outlier of comparative G7 or G20 countries.
 

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
This stuff has been said for about 30 years if not longer. That long term unemployment rate isn't that high in the UK and is below the OECD average.

I grew up on a council estate and genuinely don't recall anybody among my neighbours then who fitted that description. I certainly don't know of anybody now who does.
I still live on the estate that I grew up on (I'm 54) and it was originally part council part self owned. I know of at least 2 families who have never worked and that includes their now adult kids as well as other single adults who have no inclination to work.
I also have some distant relatives living in the city who have never worked and their kids are now in their 50's with families doing the same.
It is a cycle and it is a problem and has been for a very long time.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
The unemployment rate doesn’t include people of sickness benefits so taking the unemployment rate at face value is deeply flawed. Bearing in mind that includes people with mild anxiety or depression, that’s a lot of people being under the radar.

In reality, unemployment is more like 15%. It’s a massive issue and we’re an outlier of comparative G7 or G20 countries.
If this exists at all then it was permitted by Cameron and George, I can't remember if Bliar and his crew implemented it, quite likely.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
If this exists at all then it was permitted by Cameron and George, I can't remember if Bliar and his crew implemented it, quite likely.
A lot of the ills we face today stem from New Labour and compounded by the Cameron years.

Both parties deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top