Re: ids on the clown's broken britain....

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:32:14 +0000, aracari
<spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:17:36 +0000 'Alang'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:36:06 +0000, aracari
<spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:52:46 +0000 'Maria'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:



Things are about to get seriously worse, with mothers of all children
over one year old to be forced to work for benefits.
Anyone want to place any bets what those children will become? They will
have nothing that matters - not the company of a father, and now not
their mother - just some NVQ trained thicko who has been pushed into the
job by lack of intelligence, qualifications, or both.

It's like kicking away the last brick in the wall.


I agree, that's why I read the piece by IDS that abelard posted.
It's horrifying. I admit that many of us who live in decent
situations sometimes ignore the magnitude of the problem, caused
by misguided policies. Brown just makes it worse.


Brown *has* made it worse. Mostly by handing out credits for this and
credits for that and distorting the tax/benefit/labour market. For
some people it just doesn't make economic sense to work. And who would
disagree? I may be faced with the same choice myself. I enjoy my work
even though only part time. It helps keep my mind active. But I may be
forced to choose between that and close on a thousand pounds a year
extra income. No brainer really given the tax benefit system now in
place.

It isn't all Brown's fault though. A state that increasingly controls
how you may live, where and how you build a house, what work you may
do and what you do to your own body has been building for the last 80
years. If the state controls all aspects of your life then cannot it
be said the state owes a duty of care to supply those things it
controls access to?

For sure, successive govts have persued policies which haven't
worked. I don't know how many of the Tory policies have been
moderated by pressure from Labour at the time and how much
is their own lack of effective ideas hoping it will all go away if
some more taxpayers money is thrown at it.

The problem is becoming so bad that society is demanding better
solutions and pols are having to rethink their approach, meaning
more drastic action. That appears to be what IDS is advocating.

All IDS is advocating is more of the big stick. If he would advocate
less government, less control, more trust he might get some grudging
support from me.


We have certainly created a class of people who have only one
skill in life: <knowing how to maximise their welfare income>.

Crap education system and lack of opportunity for many. Not many want
to live a life of means tested benefits.


The Matthews woman is right in there and appears to be the tip
of the iceberg.

Not that many abuse the system


I sometimes think that Labour's solution to any problem is to
throw taxpayers money at it and raise taxes accordingly. IDS
clearly thinks the problem is far more complex and needs a range
of long term policies to deal with.

IDS says nothing that will not make things worse. He is just following
Purnell in waving the big stick while on another of the politician's
and journalist's favourite pastimes, the scapegoat hunt.

ISTM that the issue is finding a way of breaking into the vicious
spiral that exists whereby bad parents have kids who themselves
become bad by following their bad parents. Often three generations
of families are all bad and all live on welfare.

It almost doesn't need saying that this class of people cause a
lot of the problems in society...and cost taxpayers £billions.

I would blame the politicians, journalists and those middle classes
who want everyone to be a clone.


The problem *is* more complex. It doesn't need mothers forced out to
work so children are left with child minders. It doesn't need families
evicted and children taken into care. It does need to recognise that
we are not all middle class.

Perhaps there's been an attempt to avoid treating these people as
what they really are, by giving them a chance to lift themselves
up and out of their spiral. Many don't respond. Perhaps we should
recognise that some people simply do not have the mental
capability of behaving like adults, holding down a regular job or
taking on regular responsibilities.This may be the case 'even if'
they're educated.

Maybe some people just want to be left to get on with fairly
uncomplicated lives. Maybe it's the state that fetches all the
complications into their lives and they can't cope. If you aren't
getting pursued for council tax you can ignore that bastards

It's a bit like driving: some people simply were not born to
drive, but they've been given a licence in the name of liberalism.
We are all suffering, because these are often people who drive
w/o insurance/MOT etc.

In both of these examples, some people have to face the truth that
they're unable to be regular members of society and cannot expect
the same level of freedom that the rest of us have.

We don't have freedom. Perhaps they recognise that.


Fake Eton and Harrow schools on estates where the combined cash income
of ten families where tax credits are not included would not equal
that of a teacher only add insult to injury. Dressing up in fake
uniforms kids who then are starved of a decent education is an insult.
I've been there. My own kids have been there. From posts Maria made
about her own kids schools the problem is still there. Schools should
be there to educate not indoctrinate. Not to turn out clones to
whatever the government has decided is the latest pattern. Not to
usurp the responsibility of the parent on the morals, manners and mode
of dress of their children.

State education will always contain a fair bit of indoctrination.
Much more so with a socialist govt.

Tories are socialists then. I have made that claim many times

But education isn't the only aspect of indoctrination people get.
Just turn on the BBC News and it's full of propaganda.

Always was.

The minimum standards needed to live are a roof, water, cooking
facilities, warmth in winter and a place to ***. Up to the 70s there
were plenty of cheap homes available that fulfilled all those
requirements. They were usually described as slums. But they had great
advantages for someone on low income. They cost little. Water and
rates were included in the rent and if the electric got cut off you
could use candles. But the state didn't bother you as long as you
obeyed the law. If you did nothing wrong then mostly you had nothing
to fear apart from the odd rogue cop.

These places are now hotbeds of guns, drugs, violence etc.

Funny how they were not when guns were mostly legal and drugs were
mostly not illegal and people mostly policed themselves

In those days you could work for yourself at a pinch and as long as
you were not a nuisance to others and didn't earn enough to bother
the tax man you could go through life with a small income and not be a
bother to anyone. Contrast that with today. Can anyone not interact
with the state? Is it at all possible to work for oneself without
getting permits from the state?

My gripe is that some people blame 'liberalism' for all these
problems. It may have played a part by people demanding their
liberal rights to do what they like without accepting that freedom
and liberty carry responsibilities.

Indeed.
I had no problems with my taxes even when I paid quite high ones being
used to finance universal education because that benefits society as a
whole. A healthy populace is a benefit to all. Who minds paying into a
central pot for clean water and sewage treatment when the alternative
may be plague or as we see in Zimbabwe cholera? I don't mind a basic
housing scheme for a small family. Better than seeing them live in a
ditch.

I do have a problem with providing more than the basics to those who
are not in work or of independent income. I don't see why a lifestyle
of permanent pregnancy should be available to anyone

Or as someone pointed out why the taxpayer should be subsidising
middle class speculative house buyers who have just seen their 300000
pound property lose a third of the value and they are out of work
.

Loading