George Osborne,does he have a point ?

[Ernest]

Very much agree with this. Lots of Range Rover driving, Waitrose rats who are happy to scoop up a handful of my tax money to pay for their holiday's and Imogen's riding lessons.

Not forgetting Cameron claimed DLA so does that make him a benefit scrounger ?

 

[Silk]

Firstly most fair minded people accept a modern welfare system is a necessary and valuable asset.

But I think it has become far too generous, far above the level of 'survive' as you have stated.

If it is reasonable to be rewarded for work as opposed to not working your starting point is what does unemployment pay ??

In many circumstances this includes housing, weekly pay and subsidy in many other forms, offering a life style beyond that of those working.

It then follows that those in employment become angry whilst those uneducated and unqualified families can never find work that might offer the same rewards as their benefits do.

Most people would probably work rather than not, given the choice. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of benefit claimants, no such choice exists. That is the problem. Not enough jobs. The target of anger is misplaced, in the vast majority of cases, where it is the system that's wrong, not the people.

 

[Ernest]

This is the judgement of Sarah Teather (until recently a Lib Dem coalition minister) about the legacy of the coalition government.

She says the coalition risks leaving the country a "more divided, more brutal and more selfish" one than the one it inherited by "demonising" recipients of welfare, as well as immigrants. In a pointed reference to her Lib Dem ministerial colleagues, she said it was not enough "to leave irresponsible suggestions hanging, unopposed in the milieu of rotten argument. The marginalisation of immigrants and the poorest in public perception is tangible. Silence will only entrench it further."

She said of George Osborne in the wake of the Philpott case, '"I am shocked and appalled that George Osborne has stooped so low as to make a crude political point out of the tragic deaths of six young children. It's one thing for a tabloid newspaper to make unsophisticated, clumsy political arguments, quite another for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to join in.

If that's the view of a senior MP inside the coalition what are we, the British public, expected to make of this government?

 

[Silk]

This is the judgement of Sarah Teather (until recently a Lib Dem coalition minister) about the legacy of the coalition government.

She says the coalition risks leaving the country a "more divided, more brutal and more selfish" one than the one it inherited by "demonising" recipients of welfare, as well as immigrants. In a pointed reference to her Lib Dem ministerial colleagues, she said it was not enough "to leave irresponsible suggestions hanging, unopposed in the milieu of rotten argument. The marginalisation of immigrants and the poorest in public perception is tangible. Silence will only entrench it further."

She said of George Osborne in the wake of the Philpott case, '"I am shocked and appalled that George Osborne has stooped so low as to make a crude political point out of the tragic deaths of six young children. It's one thing for a tabloid newspaper to make unsophisticated, clumsy political arguments, quite another for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to join in.

If that's the view of a senior MP inside the coalition what are we, the British public, expected to make of this government?

The answer to that is simple but unprintable. Apparently Osborne has claimed today that he is tune with the British public on this. Of he is, I despair for our future, I really do.

 

[BigGully]

Most people would probably work rather than not, given the choice. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of benefit claimants, no such choice exists. That is the problem. Not enough jobs. The target of anger is misplaced, in the vast majority of cases, where it is the system that's wrong, not the people.[/QUOTE

Woefully blinkered.

Unfortunately there remains many whom claim quite generous benefits without much desire to get work.

To a point the system locks them into a 'culture' of benefits, whilst having little chance of securing employment that might sustain their current welfare income.

I am not sure why you state that 'most people would probably work rather than not', why would they work if they do not receive a comparable financial reward to their benefits they currently receive.

Lottery winners very rarely work after a win because the financial reward of work is no longer valid.

Its just another myth that is casually banded about for those opposed to challenging the welfare conundrum.

How is it that a major influx of immigrants illegal or not are sometimes held up as beacons of the 'work ethic', how did they find the jobs and millions of English workers with shedloads of initiatives and sophisticated employment searches cannot.

You cannot have it both ways, the welfare system is their to support mostly short-term difficulties or longer term genuine vulnerable persons, beyond that there needs to be full scrutiny and sanctions to those in receipt of quite generous hand outs.

Of course there are some contradictions within big business and you can scowl at capitalism if you want, but its where we are and to disproportionately reward non productive people will fail us all.

 

[Silk]

Most people would probably work rather than not, given the choice. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of benefit claimants, no such choice exists. That is the problem. Not enough jobs. The target of anger is misplaced, in the vast majority of cases, where it is the system that's wrong, not the people.[/QUOTE

Woefully blinkered.

Unfortunately there remains many whom claim quite generous benefits without much desire to get work.

To a point the system locks them into a 'culture' of benefits, whilst having little chance of securing employment that might sustain their current welfare income.

I am not sure why you state that 'most people would probably work rather than not', why would they work if they do not receive a comparable financial reward to their benefits they currently receive.

Lottery winners very rarely work after a win because the financial reward of work is no longer valid.

Its just another myth that is casually banded about for those opposed to challenging the welfare conundrum.

How is it that a major influx of immigrants illegal or not are sometimes held up as beacons of the 'work ethic', how did they find the jobs and millions of English workers with shedloads of initiatives and sophisticated employment searches cannot.

You cannot have it both ways, the welfare system is their to support mostly short-term difficulties or longer term genuine vulnerable persons, beyond that there needs to be full scrutiny and sanctions to those in receipt of quite generous hand outs.

Of course there are some contradictions within big business and you can scowl at capitalism if you want, but its where we are and to disproportionately reward non productive people will fail us all.

Anyone who compares benefit claimants with lottery winners has frankly taken leave of their senses.

 

[BigGully]

Anyone who compares benefit claimants with lottery winners has frankly taken leave of their senses.

Oh come on, that wasnt meant in that context, you know it wasn't.

Put your case if you want to, but cheap shots really don't add much.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

With respect, you should come under the scrutiny of us taxpayers contributing to your benefits and you should be challenged as to why you are not in employment and how you might find employment very soon.

Its quite reasonable to effect your current position, it doesnt follow that it is nasty or lacking compassion, employed persons are accountable everyday for their actions so why shouldn't you.

I too, have had to use the system some time ago, I have to say I was surprised how generous it was, compared to my working life it was relatively stress free.

But I was soon in work, working hard for quite a low wage, but I genuinely felt I had an obligation to get off benefits asap. and I accepted the inevitable scrutiny, although it was quite low level stuff, just a form filled here and there.

I made the transition from welfare and to a job in a short time and whilst I was thankful of its help, I was mindful that others weren't as determined to find employment as I had been.

Who said I was claiming any benefits? Perhaps it's another example of your ignorance & prejudice towards others who have a different opinion to your own? Judge not - lest ye be judged.

 

[BigGully]

Who said I was claiming any benefits? Perhaps it's another example of your ignorance & prejudice towards others who have a different opinion to your own? Judge not - lest ye be judged.

A simple mistake when quickly reading an earlier post from you.

Condemn me for my reading skills if you wish, but I am not sure it warrants a contrived conclusion that it is clear evidence of prejudice and ignorance on my part .......

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The answer to that is simple but unprintable. Apparently Osborne has claimed today that he is tune with the British public on this. Of he is, I despair for our future, I really do.

Jesus. When digging a hole for yourself, the first rule of recovery is to stop digging.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

A simple mistake when quickly reading an earlier post from you.

Condemn me for my reading skills if you wish, but I am not sure it warrants a contrived conclusion that it is clear evidence of prejudice and ignorance on my part .......

I didn't - & indeed don't - condemn you at all. I accept your previous post was based on an oversight by you and your honesty is muchly appreciated. I realise my questions to you were both rhetorical & rather barbed, but I think both of our faux pas have come about through sparring on a subject that we both evidently feel strongly about. It's probably just as well for both of us that the usual NSC bill o' fare is a lot less controversial (well possibly!), and a good deal more humourous.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Sorry. The interweb went bonkers on me.

 

[BigGully]

I didn't - & indeed don't - condemn you at all. I accept your previous post was based on an oversight by you and your honesty is muchly appreciated. I realise my questions to you were both rhetorical & rather barbed, but I think both of our faux pas have come about through sparring on a subject that we both evidently feel strongly about. It's probably just as well for both of us that the usual NSC bill o' fare is a lot less controversial (well possibly!), and a good deal more humourous.

Agreed ;-)

 

[Silk]

Jesus. When digging a hole for yourself, the first rule of recovery is to stop digging.

What on Earth that is supposed to mean, I really don't know.

 

[Bakero]

What on Earth that is supposed to mean, I really don't know.

Referring to George Osbourne, surely.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What on Earth that is supposed to mean, I really don't know.

George started digging a hole for himself with his intial comment, and then carried on with his subsequent comment a few days later about how he was in tune with the UK's thoughts on this matter. Was my comment too cryptic?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Referring to George Osbourne, surely.

Correct. I thought my reply was obvious but maybe not.

 

[Silk]

George started digging a hole for himself with his intial comment, and then carried on with his subsequent comment a few days later about how he was in tune with the UK's thoughts on this matter. Was my comment too cryptic?

Fair enough. I thought you were referring to me!