Labour in 'lowest ever' poll rating

[xoggoth]

Indeed there was far worse poverty before the welfare state, which really kicked off in 1906 under Lloyd george. Even several centuries before that there was welfare of a sort, one could go on the parish.

It is not so much a return to the workhouses that us righties hanker for but at least the partial restoration of the sound distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. A welfare system that concentrates only on need without insisting on responsibilities does nobody any favours. Are the majority on these sink estates happy compared to the gainfully employed? It does not look like it to me.

[oracleslave]

A welfare system that concentrates only on need without insisting on responsibilities does nobody any favours.

Proverbial nail on the head for me.

[DodgyAgent]

Linear thought that says those on Welfare benefits keep the Tories out of power.

Firstly not all on Welfare are there out of choice, not all on Welfare don't work, not all on Welfare are f eckless idiots. Not all on welfare haven't contributed to the system before they got into a mess.

Yes there are some scamming the system, but these people aren't politically aware, aren't stakeholders in society, they don't vote! How many are we talking? Less than 2 million people.
When did you last see a workshy 'chav' at a polling station?

The Tories are out of power because Labour courted the middle class voter as well as the working class Tory mondeo man/white van man/sun reading man as the media like to label them. Tribal voters hardly ever change allegiance, but the above groups do. They will win the Tories the election, what people do on Welfare is largely irrelevant. You just have a massive hangup on the Welfare state, but it's largely an irrelevance on who will win.

The stereotypical attitude you and your ilk have is the reason the Tories have been out of power for so long. Cameron realises he has to appeal (as well as the swing voters) to all backgrounds and especially the young. In the long run he has to find ways to help people on the bottom rung to help themselves, he's not going to motivate those people by dismissing them as something he trod in, like you do. He needs to address the high taxation of the low paid jobs, which forces people to remain on benefits. Of course the abolision of 10p tax rate was the an absolute gift in this respect, a realisation from the public that the only way to address poverty is low taxtion on the low paid.

The first time I saw Cameron on question time a few years ago now, he wasn't Tory leader, but he struck me as someone who could engage people from all backgrounds without patronising them. Of course since then he's had a few makeovers but now it seems his charisma is starting to appeal.

Are you saying that all 4 million people on benefits of one kind or another who are not working cannot work?

[xoggoth]

Plenty of charities would not survive if not for the hours that some on benefits put in. I've met quite a lot on welfare, mostly ex druggies or ex mental patients, who do manage to make themselves really useful with voluntary work and it very much helps them. For the able, some sort of required work in return for benefits would be a darn good idea.

[The Lone Gunman]

When people talk about those on benefits supporting Labour I dont think they are talking about the workshy chavs are they? As pointed out those types don't vote.
I thought we were talking about all those on some sort of supplementary benefit like working families allowance or whatever it is called and incapacity living allowance. These benefits are paid to those who work to make working worthwhile.
These people will terified that the Tories will take it away. Whether these fears are founded in reality makes no difference.

[DodgyAgent]

When people talk about those on benefits supporting Labour I dont think they are talking about the workshy chavs are they? As pointed out those types don't vote.
I thought we were talking about all those on some sort of supplementary benefit like working families allowance or whatever it is called and incapacity living allowance. These benefits are paid to those who work to make working worthwhile.
These people will terified that the Tories will take it away. Whether these fears are founded in reality makes no difference.

It is not just the welfare recipients that vote labour (those that vote) it is the entire welfare industry that has been created to support them.

Now had the education system been of top notch standard in the first place with plenty of sport, music and after school training there would be only those who genuinely need help on welfare (terminally ill and aged).

Just imagine what would happen if there were no unemployed in this country.
The left would never ever get into power.

[Bagpuss]

Are you saying that all 4 million people on benefits of one kind or another who are not working cannot work?

You are taking the argument off on a tangent now but I'll bite...
It obviously depends which benefit you are talking about, I'm guessing disability allowance?

Don't confuse the disabled and with the workshy. The majority on DLA can't work. I'd say 1-2 million could contribute, which is roughly the amount the claim count has gone up since the Conservatives left. The total amount of unemployed people has been fairly static for the last 20 years.


Just imagine what would happen if there were no unemployed in this country.
The left would never ever get into power.

You really are sticking to that 'dodgy' line of though aren't you?

We had circa 6 million unemployed (including disability) when Maggie was voted in three times(?), since then the total aggregate figure has gone down, yet Labour have been elected 3 times.

[DodgyAgent]

You are taking the argument off on a tangent now but I'll bite...
It obviously depends which benefit you are talking about, I'm guessing disability allowance?

Don't confuse the disabled and with the workshy. The majority on DLA can't work. I'd say 1-2 million could contribute, which is roughly the amount the claim count has gone up since the Conservatives left. The total amount of unemployed people has been fairly static for the last 20 years.

OK then why is stopping work so good for people? I argue that the worse thing for anyone is not to work, so why let them?. If DLA people cannot work in a physically demanding job then they can work in a call centre or in one of the many low skill jobs that are being taken up by the Poles.

[Bagpuss]

OK then why is stopping work so good for people? I argue that the worse thing for anyone is not to work, so why let them?. If DLA people cannot work in a physically demanding job then they can work in a call centre or in one of the many low skill jobs that are being taken up by the Poles.

Some people do, but someone with down syndrome etc isn't going to be much economic use. However, many do some part time work, and don't forget it's a means tested benefit.

I agree there are far too many taking the preverbial, there are some genuine people though who unfortunately have little to contribute.

[Lucy]

Elections are an advanced auction of stolen goods, as Mencken once said.

The money poured into state welfare year after year has little to show for it, but my fundamental point is moral. It is unethical to force people to pay for others. It is ethical to be compassionate and to give money to those who are less fortunate through charities. In fact choosing to do so means you DO care and you can select charities (or give up your own time) to those that make a real difference, rather than the bureaucrats who are dishing out money pretty much unconditionally. Why should someone who is able to support themselves be forced to pay for someone who, in the ordinary course of events, they wouldn't ever pay for? Why should force be involved?

Yes there would be a big task to transition to voluntary welfare, the first steps would be to wean people off expecting it as a lifestyle and make it timebound, a thriving industry in employment insurance and sickness insurance would mean people could be covered in the event of unfortunate incidences in their lives. However today the case is that you can grow up, be useless get welfare, have kids be useless get more welfare and it is perpetual and it is a perpetual drain paying people to breed and do next to nothing. The welfare state has failed miserably to do anything other than keep an underclass of people dependent upon the state and bred an entitlement lifestyle that is rampant. This is the idea that you are owed a living, healthcare, education and a house by the mere fact you exist, and if others dont give it to you then THEY are bad. How about a cultural change that says that the state doesnt exist to take money off of others to pay for you, but that your primary responsibility is to look after yourself and your family. That means education, healthcare, retirement and to insure against misfortune. You can call it Dickensian as much as you like, but the current system doesn't work and whilst Dickensian Britain looks worse than today (in fact virtually anywhere in the world was poorer a century or so ago), it was far wealthier than a century before. The simple point is this, would you let poverty exist if you got half your taxes back? If you wouldn't, who would? If there is such a consensus about helping the poor why wouldn't it happen voluntarily, or is your consensus a fiction?