Tories plan to lower Benefits cap

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Along with slavery, disenfranchisement of those who were not male citizens, with only around 25,000 out of 300,000 being able to vote - perhaps not the best example of a role-model....

Did I say they should be role models or that the rioting is exactly what they the inventors of the concept would've have done, besides if you really wanted to point out their flaws you need have looked no further than Socrates trial and death.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Given businesses aren't really hiring anyway even with wages falling in both real and in some cases nominal terms, hence the massive increase in self-employment, I don't think many people would notice.

I'm self employed and I employ 6 people. Not all self employed people are 'one man bands'.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Tenuous. More like a decision based on my moral compass of what is right and what is wrong than anything to do with democracy.

That being the case then how do you square your decision with your analysis of democracy below?

Originally Posted by Pierre

That's not democracy. As you point out, it's mob violence. Democracy in a civilised society is, allowing every individual to peacefully air their views, whilst adhering to the will of the majority.

Are you suggesting that your deciding not to riot was not "adhering to the will of the majority" and therefore not to any degree democratically based?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That being the case then how do you square your decision with your analysis of democracy below? Are you suggesting that your deciding not to riot was not "adhering to the will of the majority" and therefore not to any degree democratically based?

Yes I am, my deciding not to riot had nothing to do with the "will of the majority" and was more to to with the view of smashing the place up was not the way I was brought up, in so far as to respect others and others property.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes I am, my deciding not to riot had nothing to do with the "will of the majority" and was more to to with the view of smashing the place up was not the way I was brought up, in so far as to respect others and others property.

But not rioting was the will of the majority, wasn't it? Therefore your decision was in keeping with the will of the majority and, by your own definition of democracy, therefore democratically based - whether you consciously considered it to be or not.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

But not rioting was the will of the majority, wasn't it? Therefore your decision was in keeping with the will of the majority and, by your own definition of democracy, therefore democratically based - whether you consciously considered it to be or not.

Not really, where I was the rioters where pretty much in the majority. So I was going against the will of the Majority.

Similarly, the miners strike, miners that wanted to go back to work were in the minority, the majority were on strike, yet the majority of miners were in fact rebelling against a government that was democratically elected.

The miners on strike were using their democratic " freedom" to strike! the ones working were using their " freedom" to work. Both were using their own " free will" to make independent decisions. Many used their " free will" to make a decision to turn their backs on their families.

In any event Your circular arguments, and your attempt to justify your earlier statement about democracy having any influence on, or being a part of, a humans ability to have and express free will is now becoming very tiresome if not a little desperate.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not really, where I was the rioters where pretty much in the majority. So I was going against the will of the Majority. Similarly, the miners strike, miners that wanted to go back to work were in the minority, the majority were on strike, yet the majority of miners were in fact rebelling against a government that was democratically elected. The miners on strike were using their democratic " freedom" to strike! the ones working were using their " freedom" to work. Both were using their own " free will" to make independent decisions. Many used their " free will" to make a decision to turn their backs on their families. In any event Your circular arguments, and your attempt to justify your earlier statement about democracy having any influence on, or being a part of, a humans ability to have and express free will is now becoming very tiresome if not a little desperate.

I'm sorry Pierre but it was you who defined your interpretation of democracy, not I.

Clearly you have now realized your predicament and it is you who is resorting to circular arguments.

It's regrettable that you find the line of questioning "tiresome" but I'm interested in how someone who sucked at the teat of the state in the 80's (and whose family was in all probability talked about and sniggered at from behind twitching curtains for doing so) finds it so easy to pontificate about the moral grounds for reducing future benefits to the extent that he is optimistic and naive enought to think that neither he nor his family might ever have to call on that very support which he himself availed of.

It somewhat epitomises "I'm alright Jack" and cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Don't you think?

[Osem]

Was watching a BBC documentary on housing issues. They highlighted the longstanding problems (health and financial) of a couple with 5 children (aged 12-1) who're living on benefits and were stuck in a home which is clearly too small for them. Their youngest child is only one year old so why did they choose to have that 5th child given all the problems they were already experiencing? I have every sympathy for people suffering problems beyond their control but adding at least one other child (maybe more) into what were already highly unsatisfactory living conditions seems highly irresponsible. They were moved into a bigger house but I can't help wondering whether they'll choose to outgrow it...

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I'm self employed and I employ 6 people. Not all self employed people are 'one man bands'.

Reaching a bit when you feel the need to state the blindingly obvious. Doesn't change that most of the increase in self-employment is in such 'one man bands'.

---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 ----------

So - http://www.housing.org.uk/media/pres...using-benefit/

I can think of a way to reduce the housing benefit bill. Drop the dogma, admit that the private sector cannot and would never have delivered housing at the required rate or cost, and build some bloody houses.

Appreciate this is apparently some far-left point of view now, the idea that rentiers and profit-seeking companies operate in housing for rent and profit rather than to deliver housing, but still.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm sorry Pierre but it was you who defined your interpretation of democracy, not I.

Clearly you have now realized your predicament and it is you who is resorting to circular arguments.

I used to think you an intelligent and entertaining debater. The fact that you have tried desperately to steer the argument down the path of your choosing, to deflect away from the point that you made, and one I will keep dragging you back to. In regards to democracy/ free will being bollocks has seriously lessened your standing.

It's regrettable that you find the line of questioning "tiresome" but I'm interested in how someone who sucked at the teat of the state in the 80's (and whose family was in all probability talked about and sniggered at from behind twitching curtains for doing so)

Comments such as that lessen your standing even more, pretty pathetic really, do you really need to editorialise and dramatise ? Where you in Liverpool circa 81-84, did you live on our street? No, I thought not. So imagine what you want, I expect you have a good imagination to keep you company.

As for suckling on the teat, yes my father was on the dole for circa 3-4 years. He had worked all his life prior and he worked the rest of his subsequently.

He/ we used the welfare system for what it was designed for, a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

finds it so easy to pontificate about the moral grounds for reducing future benefits to the extent that he is optimistic and naive enought to think that neither he nor his family might ever have to call on that very support which he himself availed of.

I certainly hope we don't, but I would be confident that if such a time i would find a job. It might not be the job I want, and it might not pay what I want, but I'd take it.

It's called work ethic, you may want to familiarise yourself with it.

It somewhat epitomises "I'm alright Jack" and cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Don't you think?

No.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I certainly hope we don't...

I too certainly hope you don't - because unfortunately there are a load of hypocritical rabid anti benefit begrudgers trying to to reduce any social security support that you or members of your family as individuals would be entitled to.

Good luck with that & all the best for the future.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

because unfortunately there are a load of hypocritical rabid anti benefit begrudgers

As many as there are work shy scroungers using their free will (democracy not included) to "choose" not to work and sit back and let other people look after them, backed up by rabid left wing apologists that to try to pass them off as the hard done to working class, when they've never worked a day because they've "chosen" not to.

Good luck with that & all the best for the future.

as the man said, the harder I work, the luckier I get.

Cheery bye .

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

As many as there are work shy scroungers using their free will (democracy not included) to "choose" not to work and sit back and let other people look after them, backed up by rabid left wing apologists that to try to pass them off as the hard done to working class, when they've never worked a day because they've "chosen" not to. as the man said, the harder I work, the luckier I get. Cheery bye .

I agree with most of that, surprisingly.

However, I'm old enough and wise enough to know that we cannot legislate for the future behaviour or life choices of our children, their health or indeed our own continued employability with any degree of real certainty or accuracy.

We cannot know for certain, for example, that your children will not grow up to be unemployed / unemployable single parents either through choice or by fate. We cannot know if you or Mrs Pierre might end up as a single or single unemployed parents in need of social security. You cannot always be guaranteed the work to enable you to work harder and get luckier. In times where the unpredictable unfortunates become the reality it is comforting to know that there is a social security safety net.

To seek to remove that net (for all) in the guise of preventing the workshy living it up on benefits as a lifestyle choice is extreme folly and shortsightedness.

I have seen nothing in any proposed legislation which actually seeks to sort the malingerers from the genuinely needy and experience tells me that this is the way the current Government will push this legislation through. It will be to the detriment of everyone in future generations and people really ought to stop and think about that.

There will be no "But my dad has worked all his life" entitlement. There will be no "I'm really really trying but cannot get a job" entitlement. That is where we are headed. Are you prepared to take that chance just because a Government tells you they are doing this to end the benefit culture without their specifically and forensically targetting benefit fraud and worklessness?

I know of several means to prevent benefit fraud which could be introduced / legislated for in a matter of weeks if the will was there on the part of the Government, but it isn't. This is the broad stroke approach fuelled by fear and resentment (in some cases justified resentment) but it is ultimately, as I pointed out previously, a proposal for people to cut off their noses to spite their faces - fooled into thinking they are levelling some sort of playing field when in fact they are fuelling a race to the creation of an empathy free society with little to no support infrastructure for those to get it when they need it and not simply because they want it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

To seek to remove that net (for all) in the guise of preventing the workshy living it up on benefits as a lifestyle choice is extreme folly and shortsightedness.

I totally agree, and I invite you to point out where in this thread I have advocated such action.

I have stated that I believe in a welfare safety net, as that is what it was conceived as. Not a lifestyle choice that is my only beef.

Them that can work that "won't" work. That's all.

Those that have lost work and are actively looking to get back in work should receive all the help available, as should youngsters that are trying to land their first job.

My beef is purely with the benefit culture that has arisen in areas over the last 25yrs.

I think I've been consistent with that point.

I have seen nothing in any proposed legislation which actually seeks to sort the malingerers from the genuinely needy and experience tells me that this is the way the current Government will push this legislation through. It will be to the detriment of everyone in future generations and people really ought to stop and think about that.

A point well made, and taken. This is more like the Mr A. I enjoy debating with ( I hope that's not condescending)

I admit, I have not drilled into any detail, and as I point earlier distinctions should be made.

fooled into thinking they are levelling some sort of playing field when in fact they are fuelling a race to the creation of an empathy free society with little to no support infrastructure for those to get it when they need it and not simply because they want it.

I agree it is a risk, and I think empathy is in short supply - to certain demographics - I think, after the last 20 yrs or so, things do need to be changed, I don't think anyone can argue with that. But I also agree that measures need to be undertaken carefully.

I'd have no problem with welfare change if it really was making it harder for lead swingers and scroungers to obtain benefits, i'd also have no problem with some form of contract when benefits are applied for but none of that is actually happening. They stand on a podium and spout some rubbish which gets widely reported then the media organisations start running programs like benefits street and benefit house and the majority of the public fall for it. They don't really fall for it they see it for what it is and many working people these days don't have time to spend digging to get to the truth so are happy to go with the flow not realising where some politicians want it to end and it being too late by the time the penny drops.

Now IDS wants us all to pre paid cards for use at selected stores and the fantastic advantage of making it easier for benefit claimants to be identified is a freebie because not all of them have had abuse from some members of the public. Not a single politician truly wants to reform welfare in any meaningful way because they all want it there for when they choose/need to abuse it for their own ends and screw the people who have no choice but to be reliant on the system after all they always promise to look after the vulnerable don't they so must be true.