Why do you vote as you do?

[dang65]

DA and Weltchy, I'm not really clear on what you are actually asking for here.

You are both criticising the Welfare State, apparently because there are people who abuse it, or because it encourages people to spend their lives on benefits.

Are you therefore asking for the Welfare State to be abolished? Or do you just want some kind of draconian clampdown on anyone who uses the Welfare State in any form? Which country do you consider to have an ideal system of government, or even a partially acceptable one?

[DodgyAgent]

DA and Weltchy, I'm not really clear on what you are actually asking for here.

You are both criticising the Welfare State, apparently because there are people who abuse it, or because it encourages people to spend their lives on benefits.

Are you therefore asking for the Welfare State to be abolished? Or do you just want some kind of draconian clampdown on anyone who uses the Welfare State in any form? Which country do you consider to have an ideal system of government, or even a partially acceptable one?

I am not asking for it to be abolished at all. I am simply asking for champagne socialists to stop using it as a means to justify themselves. I am asking that a proper debate takes place to discuss how to remove the need for welfare for people who are perfectly capable of working. It would for example require a decent education system for EVERYONE. One that was able to sack poor teachers and invest money on reducing class sizes and encouraging sport and music to those of the levels of the best schools - private and state.

Once all children receive top quality education there is a stronger chance of breaking the need for welfare dependence. Secondly remove the restrictions to jobs through ridiculous employment laws and make any welfare recipient do some sort of work in return for benefits.

To people like you Welfare means "you support it" which is morally good, and by supporting it "I am a rather wonderful person" or "you dont support it" which is morally bad. No one is discussing how you get rid of it or reduce it in order to benefit those who depend on it and those who pay for it.

The facts stand out for themselves. Criminals, underclass and unemployed are more likely to be welfare dependents than other parts of society. So by unswervingly supporting the welfare system, you are therefore supporting something that is bluntly evil. What you , Polly Toynbee, Labour and your ilk will not admit is that welfare needs reforming-properly. You and your friends have no interest in reforming welfare because it suits your agenda to use it to stifle Tory minded people. This is manifested itself by pushing genuine people with a social conscience like Frank Field to the sidelines of politics.

The rewards for removing welfare from supporting vast swathes of the population, particularly the young are huge:

1. No need to hire foreign workers
2. Vastly reduced crime
3. Better educated workforce
4. Little unemployment

The downside of course would be that 2 million labour voters would be removed from the system and sales of macdonalds would fall.

[lukemg]

Have to agree with Dodgy, there are millions who are better off not working - so why would they ? We are NOT helping these people by the levels of support that are in place, we are perpetuating their situation. Now, it's true that having a basic level of support is a huge benefit to the rest of us because it makes it comfortable enough for most of them not to care enough to riot, rob us etc. In addition, some people SHOULD be supported as they cannot contribute as they would like. BUT, for individual cases e.g. fit and able (don't get me started on sicknotes) 18-24 yr olds, you get 6 months to find a job on your own, if not, a job will be allocated to you and if you refuse/get sacked you will lose a proportion of benefits. This increases the benefit of actually earning, it's called an incentive.
Also, don't make the mistake of thinking everyone shares the same core values and ambitions as all the middle-class people we will tend to come into contact with i.e. they WANT to work and better themselves. Of course some do, but there are plenty who are looking for a basic (roof, fags, sky, wetherspoons) level paid for by the rest of us, well sorry but I am looking for a contribution from those who can and I want them compelled to make this choice.

[dang65]

It's interesting to hear your views DA, but I wish you'd stop trying to tell me what my own views are at the same time. All I've said is that I understand the reasons why a Welfare State is of massive benefit to the country as a whole. I haven't said anywhere that I think of it as some kind of celebrity charity for champagne socialists.

[shaunbhoy]

All I've said is that I understand the reasons why a Welfare State is of massive benefit to the country as a whole.

I'll tell you what would be of "massive benefit to the country as a whole"!! shall I?
The implementation of a system that ensures that it is impossible for someone to be worse off by actually going to work, than by staying at home watching Jeremy Fooking Kyle till the Bookies opens!!
Whether or not that system would involve the dismantling of our Welfare State, or a sizeable rehash of it, is another debate. But until we purge ourselves of the dependency underclass that NL have gone out of their way to foster, we are all going to hell in a handcart. And the last thing we need are smug apologists coming on here telling us we are out of touch with what is best for our fellow countrymen!!

[dang65]

So that's three of you, at least, who appear to basically want a loophole closed in the benefits system, presumably at astronomical expense (via top class education for all, compulsory employment for all and, finally, enough funding to make it financially viable for a woman with two or three children to afford this compulsory employment full-time). And at the same time you want to vote Tory.

[shaunbhoy]

So that's three of you, at least, who appear to basically want a loophole closed in the benefits system, presumably at astronomical expense (via top class education for all, compulsory employment for all and, finally, enough funding to make it financially viable for a woman with two or three children to afford this compulsory employment full-time). And at the same time you want to vote Tory.

A "Loophole".
Employment does not have to be compulsory, just as long as me funding their fecklessness should not be compulsory either. If you can't afford kids then don't fooking have them.........simples!!
We have had 13 years of a Government that "rewards" teenage girls with accommodation of their own, and this for perfecting nothing more than the dubious art of opening their legs wantonly whilst avoiding contraception.
And muppets like you will defend that.................unbelievable!
We need a Government that at least acknowledges that there are still some Family units in existence, and recognises the hardships they are enduring in funding through their taxes, these workshy benefit scrounging layabouts.
The sooner we get rid of this malignant morally bankrupt administration, the better.

[DodgyAgent]

It's interesting to hear your views DA, but I wish you'd stop trying to tell me what my own views are at the same time. All I've said is that I understand the reasons why a Welfare State is of massive benefit to the country as a whole. I haven't said anywhere that I think of it as some kind of celebrity charity for champagne socialists.

You do not actually have any logic to support your views. You make sweeping statements that are meaningless. How exactly for example does Welfare "benefit the country as a whole". people here are not impressed or influenced by cliches and soundbites. I have made an argument that says:

1. You dont give a s**t about the poor
2. The Welfare state is a handy moral totem for you to be a self righteous socialist.

So try and explain and maybe i can change my conclusions

[Weltchy]

Personally, I'd like to see a reduction in the amount of handout, instead replaced with something along the lines of Food Stamps, and maybe the equivalent for the paying of rent and the like. At the end of the day, these guys are supposed to be at the bottom of the ladder and in need of a helping hand to lift them up. If however their spending their dole money on Fags and Booze, then this is wrong. I don't have a plasma TV at home, just a 32 inch CRT. How many people on the dole do you think have a nice big 40 inch stuck on their wall?

[Weltchy]

So that's three of you, at least, who appear to basically want a loophole closed in the benefits system, presumably at astronomical expense (via top class education for all, compulsory employment for all and, finally, enough funding to make it financially viable for a woman with two or three children to afford this compulsory employment full-time). And at the same time you want to vote Tory.

Your statement above is a classic example of one of the problems with this country at the moment. Single mum, 2-3 kids. If the state was geared more toward a family orientated unit, with two responsible parents, not one, I wonder what effect this would have on todays society?

We all have a responsibility, starting with ourselves. Then with our closest family and friends. Then further out into the community and beyond.