On 6 Jan 2012 at 6:35pm SOM wrote:
Any thoughts on how we can make something of the UK again ? Is it worth trying....
On 6 Jan 2012 at 7:19pm bastian wrote:
if the UK is ever to recover itself it needs to make things again and when we do we must not go for the short term money grab..it must be a long term investment where peoples jobs are safe for life and a company is not up for sale as soon as it goes into profit, we need to relearn how to stabilise.
On 6 Jan 2012 at 7:32pm Clifford wrote:
Do you mean the UK as an entity? Does it matter? There was something before the UK existed ad there'll be something after. We are more than whatever name the State chooses to call itself.
On 6 Jan 2012 at 8:41pm Deelite wrote:
In the cyclical rise and fall that seems to be 'just the way things are' the UK is definitely on the way down. Had great empire, now ugly little country.
On 6 Jan 2012 at 11:41pm Paul Newman wrote:
When it meant anything it meant greater England , now its a just a name for set of entitlements. The UK is finished and I notice that the constituent parts of England, public and private sector , have almost nothing left to say to each other.
On 6 Jan 2012 at 11:44pm Deelite wrote:
Just left with the rather great BBC.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 2:20am SHS wrote:
Yes, make things again, things that people need and make them here in Lewes. However don't wait for investment, start off on your own or with a few close buddies, start small and grow. The second fix will be to get rid of social security and employments benefits completely - this will make people want to work. Get rid of the minimum wage. Get rid of the ban on multiple wives.....
On 7 Jan 2012 at 7:33am Clifford wrote:
SHS - you know if you get rid of the minimum wage then housing benefit payments go up, don't you? Or do you want to cap rents as well? And when unemployment rises, as it is now (and did in the 1930s and 1980s), do you think it's because a big mob of people suddenly become lazy?
On 7 Jan 2012 at 7:45am Shagger wrote:
Hmmm... allowing the acquisition of multiple wives sounds like a good idea. Mind you, I've never been bothered about whether they were married anyway.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 8:37am The Boy Bernie wrote:
Clifford talks sense.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 8:44am DFL wrote:
Of course he does !
On 7 Jan 2012 at 9:31am Paul Newman wrote:
Clifford people are always lazy when the choices and culture they inhabit encourage it. You may not have noticed but both Parties are trying to reclaim the inheritance of Beveridge which was to reward work not ossify idle neediness. It was conceived when it was imagined that a far smaller working population would enjoy full employment a policy goal abandoned in the 70s with flying ponies for everyone and fairy tears for breakfast. You are right that once a wasteful and corrupt system starts to operate it is fearfully hard to dismantle but that is no reason not to try .
On 7 Jan 2012 at 9:32am Grunge wrote:
Read John of Gaunt's speech (Shakespeare). That is how we should be, tolerant, happy and protected - though not aggressive.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 9:35am Paul Newman wrote:
The minimum wage has little measurable effect on employment in a static state but its does stop entry and over time corrupt the supply side. Small Companies cannot employ, young entrants cannot enter and when you need growth, driven by new Companies, you don`t get it.
This is one of the many reasons that borrowing more just to throw at an unreformed supply side has been abandoned across the political spectrum which I hope you have noticed
On 7 Jan 2012 at 9:45am Paul Newman wrote:
Welfare -The feeling of the British people outside is this. A poll in Oct ‚??11 found 63% of people doubt the benefits system works effectively, and 72% want politicians to do more to cut the benefits bill (only 15% disagreed). 78% wanted job seekers to lose benefits if they refuse work they can do.
The uncomfortable fact for intellectually Lilliputian Lewes Lewes lefties is that poorer working people are more vindictive towards ‚??benefit scroungers‚?? than richer people. Of course they are
On 7 Jan 2012 at 2:49pm The Boy Bernie wrote:
Paul, without a minimum wage how do you protect the workforce against exploitation if at the same time you are saying benefits will be cut if you don't do a job you can do?
On 7 Jan 2012 at 3:24pm Paul Newman wrote:
Benefit related resources should only be cut over time.They should be more "conditional" collected locally to some extent and not infinite. Imagine how you would feel if that house of loafers ( and we all know one ) was actually living directly on your money . How would they feel ? Ashamed ones hopes, grateful perhaps. Not entitled and infantilised.
On the min wag , rather than increase unemployment and keep the young out of the workplace the state should focus its resources on increasing opportunity . The Min wage only shifts the furniture around
On 7 Jan 2012 at 3:39pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Until we have full employment, there is no point in cutting out of work benefits. Everyone who doesn't want a job is leaving one free for someone who does. The sick, the vulnerable and those caring for others in need must be supported or we may as well be in the third world.
Landlords and letting agents should be brought under control to stop them charging the max they can get unde housing benefit for substandard properties and chucking people out when they want repairs done.
We should have a programme of public works to create jobs and apprenticeships, so young people can learn useful skills. The tax revenues generated and jbos created by them having money to spend would create more wealth in the long run.
I find it horrific that there are families dependent on food parcels from churches in 21st century Britain.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 3:45pm supporter wrote:
leave the EU and stop all thse stupid directives and laws being inposed on us.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 3:47pm SHS wrote:
PN talking sense. Cliff - abandon housing benefit. A lower wage bill lowers costs and makes all things possible, think China. We badly need to lower the cost of living in this country. If someone is working, even for £4 and hour, at least they have an opportunity to move up the ladder, gain skills, keep out of mischief and contribute. The UK should be a team with ambition, with everyone pulling their weight - we can't afford hangers-on any more.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 4:41pm bastian wrote:
boy bernie, don't goad Paul..it'll never stop or conclude peacefully but end in angry rants.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 4:43pm bastian wrote:
SHS that sounds like communism in a small way but of course you don't mean to make revolution...we are not starting at year zero.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 5:37pm me wrote:
@SHS - perhaps slavery might be a good idea?
Force the parasitic "Fat Cats" to pay a living wage. When work pays, people work. When people work they have money to spend, When money is spent it creates jobs.
Why should I give up 40hrs a week of my life and get nothing but "The satisfaction of working" hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa I mean seriously, come back from whatever planet you seem to inhabit. I believe it was the Germans who coined the phrase "Work sets you free". It was a lie then and it's a lie now.
And before you start crowing, yes I am full time employed and could simply not live on £4 an hour. In fact I'd quite happily join A riot and smash down a system which promotes such disgusting exploitation.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 8:55pm observer wrote:
I feel so sorry for you som, and I can understand why so many people emigrate. I am no spring chicken but I have said it before and I will say it again " bring back national service, not only will it solve an unemployement situation but it would discipline the men folk and give them back their self respect". Its not always their fault and lets face it getting more on benefits than working is very tempting. National service is not always about fighting but learning discipline and a trade in most cases.
On 7 Jan 2012 at 11:02pm Yawn.... wrote:
Don't the women need disciplining too?
On 8 Jan 2012 at 7:57am Observer wrote:
Definetly yawn, perhaps more so ha ha.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 11:31am Clifford wrote:
Always the same old story - just as unemployment is rising (caused by the economic system, not the workers), the attacks on the unemployed begin. It's a bit like attacking the sick when a flu epidemic begins. And I've noticed not one criticism on this thread of the people who caused the crisis - the banks and the government that failed to keep the in line. Just one more thing for the economic illiterates who want to cut or abolish benefits - do that and overall demand falls further, increasing unemployment in a downward spiral.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 12:16pm skint wrote:
No one has got a problem with any genuine unemployed people who are actively seeking work Clifford. What riles most people are the scrounging layabouts who have never worked nor inted to work yet seem to have 2 foreign holidays per year, 2 cars, 50" tv's in every room, more pets than people, Xboxes and wii's in every room etc etc.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 12:24pm Clifford wrote:
So you personally know these people do you skint? How do you differentiate between them and the genuinely unemployed? What proportion of people signing on would you say have '2 foreign holidays per year, 2 cars, 50" tv's in every room, more pets than people, Xboxes and wii's in every room etc etc'? Do you know these stories about the scrounging unemployed living the life of Riley cropped up in the 1930s and 1980s - just as unemployment was rising?
On 8 Jan 2012 at 12:53pm SHS wrote:
If I understand you correctly Clifford, this is how I can keep the economy going:
1. I pay my neighbour's family (MNF) a large sum of money not to work, to pay rent on a home, to buy enough things to have a comfortable life with lots of leisure and to be entitled to many free or discounted services.
2. MNF pay VAT on purchases, helping to pay the govt monolith that makes sure I don't step out of line. MNF also keep businesses going by buying their goods. Maybe one of those same businesses employs me and pays me to pay MNF.
3. Since I pay so much tax to pay MNF and since I work such long hours for such low pay then (a) I buy fewer things and use fewer services so do less to support businesses than MNF and (b) I pay less vat than MNF.
4. Because of (3) MNF have to be paid even more not to work, just to keep the economy going.
Just one problem. When more than 50% of the nation becomes unemployed and the other 50% makes up the expanded govt, who will work to keep businesses going so that they can pay corporation tax and NI to keep the country running?
On 8 Jan 2012 at 1:14pm BeerceHip wrote:
On 8 Jan 2012 at 1:17pm Clifford wrote:
Of dear SHS. Why do you assume it's you who will always have the job? Has there ever been a capitalist economy with 50% unemployment? Why do you think unemployment benefit was first introduced? Do you think the best thing would be to let people who are thrown out of work in the public and private sector have the choice of starving or stealing? Why do you think unemployment increased in the 1880s, 1930s and 1980s? A change in the weather?
On 8 Jan 2012 at 1:50pm Southover Queen wrote:
"What riles most people are the scrounging layabouts who have never worked nor inted to work yet seem to have 2 foreign holidays per year, 2 cars, 50" tv's in every room, more pets than people, Xboxes and wii's in every room etc etc."
What riles most people is arrant nonsense published in the right wing press which perpetuates this stuff. It's a nasty urban myth. I, in common with several other regular posters here, have often worked among groups receiving benefits and I have never seen anything which comes close to this picture.
Stop blaming the poor: let's tackle the people who think it's appropriate to pay themselves 2000% more than the shop floor workers.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 2:07pm Clifford wrote:
Exactly, Southover Queen.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 2:42pm Paul Newman wrote:
SQ the people who live amongst the welfare queens disagree, are you sure you are so very much cleverer than them? It is incredibly common for a single mother to have a phantom partner kicking in with cash regularly and a vast grey economy .You sound like the comedy Lambeth social worker " Look I know these people ...blah blah" . You don`t. Your sort always sing the same song. Tax tax tax tax and throw the cash at anyone who sticks their hand out. Well the Nation has moved on and so has the Labour Party. Welfare accounts for all of our income tax, it reinforces poverty
On 8 Jan 2012 at 3:08pm Clifford wrote:
Paul, if fraud is so common and you know who's doing it - why not ring the DWP fraudline? Do you know what proportion of the social security budget is accounted for by the state retirement pension and pension credit? What proportion by disability benefit? Go on, tell us, because as you say, we know norhing.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 3:25pm skint wrote:
Clifford & SQ...what planets do you live on ? it's certainly not planet real world is it !!!. As i said, i have absolutely no probs with the genuine unemployed but the scroungers can rot in hell...im sick of them. The welfare system is thre to help the genuine but not there to fund a millionaire's lifestyle. I must introduce you to my neighbours.
As you seem to be condoning the scrounging culture, i can only assume you're doing the same and are one of the country's great unwashed.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 3:34pm Southover Queen wrote:
"the people who live amongst the welfare queens disagree"
I don't think they do. If you're referring to the likes of "skint" posting here, then I might take it seriously if s/he were able actually to name someone living this mythical life with dozens of 50" tellies and two foreign holidays a year, but s/he isn't, is s/he, because it's just something s/he has read in the Sun or heard at the bus stop or waiting in the supermarket queue.
Of course benefit fraud goes on, but that's a different matter: it's stealing from the state. I'll support anyone who wants to report the fraudsters - I'd do it myself in a heartbeat because it's dishonest and it actually harms the honest claimants who struggle to survive at all. What I despise is the gullibility of everyone who somehow fails to make the distinction between fraudsters and people scraping by on benefits.
I'm just challenging the muddled thinking and willingness to trot out stereotypical claptrap here. Bring some real experience to the table rather than prejudice please.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 4:12pm skint wrote:
Oh believe me SQ, this is real. I'd love to name names but this would just leave my family open to abuse and violence. Please don't take this lightly, there are some people who are absolutely thrashing the system and getting away with it
On 8 Jan 2012 at 4:22pm Southover Queen wrote:
Then report them, skint. My point is that you can't live the life you describe on benefits, so they must be defrauding the system. It's not the government's fault or the system's fault, it's the fault of criminals stealing from the state. It's not a reason for cutting back benefits though.
On 8 Jan 2012 at 4:31pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Well said SQ.