Question Time

[Simster]

I do agree with [MENTION=11956]bushy[/MENTION] here, [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION]. If the only jobs out there are those paying £7 an hour and you need a job to keep a roof over your heads, then we as a nation should be looking to fill those jobs.

None of this detracts from your stance that it is Gideon's job to attract better, more skilled jobs into economy, but I am uncomfortable with this idea that the bone idle can simply point at the chancellor and say it is all his fault that society is paying for his family's upkeep when there might be jobs out there that should mean otherwise.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You really, really can, it's the prevalence of this sort of attitude amongst some people that has led to the Jeremy Kyle , benefit addicted generation.

You can't. Aside from putting a gun to someone's head how on earth can you make someone take a job, in say, Starbucks?

 

[User removed 4]

You can't. Aside from putting a gun to someone's head how on earth can you make someone take a job, in say, Starbucks?

By making it financially impossible for them if they dont.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You really, really can, it's the prevalence of this sort of attitude amongst some people that has led to the Jeremy Kyle , benefit addicted generation.

And I'm pretty certain most employers would not want to employ someone who is only there because of force. And as a customer I would not bother a business which has a load of disgruntled employees under duress.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

By making it financially impossible for them if they dont.

There are still alternatives if they really do not want to work in that Starbucks job. And far more costly to the tax payer alternatives like benefit fraud, crime or the black market. If someone is adamant they do not want to do a low-skilled job for peanuts they will not do it. Force it not the correct route.

Now, if you gave someone the choice of crime, Starbucks, education, apprenticeship................do you think more peope might be inclined to work?

 

[jonny.rainbow]

By making it financially impossible for them if they dont.

Hello soaring crime rate, overcrowded prisons, anti social problems caused by mass homelessness.

 

[User removed 4]

Hello soaring crime rate, overcrowded prisons, anti social problems caused by mass homelessness.

So you basically want to be dictated to by people who wont work ? correct ? i'd also make it a lot less appealing prospect to be convicted of a crime as well.

 

[Safeway]

You can't. Aside from putting a gun to someone's head how on earth can you make someone take a job, in say, Starbucks?

We've been here before!

I don't have the answer, but I absolutely LOATHE the idea that people should get away without working purely because they don't want to. Why should you and I work and pay our taxes to keep these scum in their council properties, watching ITV2 on their HD telly?

Given the choice most people wouldn't work, that's why they play the lottery (as, ironically, do many of the jobless), but it's called life.

 

[16bha]

Panel are a bit lippy tonight. Challenging the audience? Whatever next?

 

[Beach Hut]

Diane Abbott talking shit as usual though, nothing really changes

 

[PaoloRossiJohnson]

Heseltine's phone... CLASSIC!!!

 

[sten]

Hitchens- basically saying what the silent majority think
Hesletine- playing safe on every subject
Abbott-useless hypercrite
Cable-spouts lots of stats but no opinion
Canon of St. Paul's- wetter than haddocks bathing costume
Dumbalbee- dreadful like his soppy brother about time the bbc got rid
Audience-carefully chosen as per usual

 

[16bha]

Leanne Wood - Would you?