Do you want to discuss boring politics? (24 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.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Creating generational dependency on welfare does not lift people out of poverty.
Not sure the outcomes for kids growing up in poverty are great. If you punish kids for the actions of their parents you're just doomed to repeat the cycle.

Now if you want to argue over the best ways to lift those kids out of poverty and improve outcomes that's a whole different argument.
I have no qualms with people claiming for a short period of time when tough times fall but have a massive issue funding idle families. This is the big shift post-COVID, most people on UC were in work pre-COVID (like many of my friends and family) but now this is 35% of claimants.
To translate this to the real world how would you distinguish who is idle and who has a genuine need, bearing in mind not all genuine needs are short term and there are people who have many years of contributing in who now find themselves unable to work over the long term through no fault of their own?

As for an increase in sick people post-covid do you not think there could be a connection there? There's reports that 3% of the population have long covid, that can be totally debilitating. Friend of mine, who was very much contributing in as a lawyer, was fit as anything, running marathons for fun and that kind of thing. Got a mild case of covid and now, several years on, struggles to make it down the stairs unassisted. I'm sure they aren't the only one.
Right now, with the UC rises, an unemployed person can earn more than someone on minimum wage.
IMO this is more of an issue with wages than benefits. We've got huge numbers of people in work needing benefits to try and survive. I don't believe anyone in full time employment should be struggling to cover the basics.
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.
After 15 years of decimating youth mental health services in the name of austerity we now have an increase in the number of young people struggling with mental health issues. Could there possibly be some link?

Think it's very easy to point at certain sectors of society and label them undeserving of support or an economic drain. It's far harder to put things in place that both don't have knock on effects, such as increase in crime, and don't end up including people who should be getting all the help they need.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The
Actually, it was Maggie Thatcher that decided that it was a price worth paying when she allowed entire industries to be closed down

The coal mining industry was far more hit by the Labour government. She just delivered the final nail in an already created coffin
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
What’s ’logical’ here? I’d rather accept an aging population than importing hundreds of thousands or even millions of low income, low net worth individuals who will be a net-drain. So too would the electorate, no one voted for 900k immigration per year.
So your answer is 'let the elderly suffer?"

You'd rather let our old people in need of care and support suffer and left to rot just so you don't have to see immigrants.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The other thing I didn’t realise was that although the horrific Beeching Report was commissioned by McMillan it was Wilson who acted with zeal to decimate the railways
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top