General politics discussion thread

[matbro1984]

In fact, while we're encouraging undesirables like Gypsies not to have children, let's make them more productive to society at the same time. Perhaps we should house them all in some sort of work camp where they can do useful physical labour and contribute properly to society: after all, work makes you free as the saying goes.

 

So what was your take on this?

[matbro1984]

So, basically what you're advocating is that people who earn below a certain amount of money shouldn't have children?

 

Nope. What I'm saying is that this is just another example of the distance in the modern perception of rights versus responsibilities. A person may want a child, but if they can't afford to support it then they should be more responsible than simply having it and expecting government to foot the bill.

 

Generations live on benefit because they see no alternative, while not actually looking for an alternative, and so the problem perpetuates. The problem with making misery bearable is that it doesn't encourage change. Got fags, got booze, got TV = happy. One thing I have learnt is that you cannot change someone who does not want to change. Now, before David jumps in to try and put words into my mouth again, I'm not suggesting for one second that we don't support those who need it. What I am suggesting is that without fostering the attitude that strives for upward mobility, I see no end to the problem.

 

Very well put.

 

It's a very, very slippery slope that Yoghurt and Happ are on (though I suspect Happ is on the wind-up as well). Once you start making qualitative decisions on who is or isn't appropriate to have children, you're only 1 or two logical leaps away from eugenics. And in case you think it can't happen, it DID happen within the last 100 years (puts on Glenn Beck voice) in a little place called Nazi Germany.

That's an unfair comparison. You make it sound like it's someone in an office ticking a box and determining who can and cannot have children. It's not that simple. What is being advocated is :

(a) Would-be parents do so because they want children, not because they need children to obtain larger sums in benefits, and

(b) those who have decided to have children are in a position to adequately care for it.

 

In fact, having read that back, clearly it's part A that's the problem, and is a consequence of tackling the problem of part B. Regardless of whatever spin someone puts on it, it is an undeniable fact that children are being born in the country to parents who view the child as a means to an end. Solving this is not simple, I concede.

Edited February 24, 2011 by matbro1984

[mikey]

Workhouses have a bad rap. I'm not kidding on this one either. My mum worked with a woman on her book about the last workhouse to close in London and it wasn't all Oliver Twist. For a lot of the people in workhouses, it was the difference between begging and having some sort of life. Not all workhouses are the same, I know this, but I think people jump to conclusions. Besides, it was a different world back then.

Indeed it was. The gap between the rich & the poor has grown by a fair margin since the era you speak of.

 

I think you're living in a fucking fantasy world if you believe that. The rich seem richer because of fractional banking systems and such like. Penny for penny, inflation adjusted, the very rich of this era are no more rich than the very rich of that era. The difference is that the banking system is on steroids and we view wealth differently, which makes people seem a lot richer.

[mikey]

The heavy industry that employed their parents and grandparents is gone forever, systematically destroyed by the last Tory government.

 

Agree with much of what you wrote except the above. The Tories put a bullet in it, doesn't mean they didn't inherit a sick dog.

[Kenny McBride]

The heavy industry that employed their parents and grandparents is gone forever, systematically destroyed by the last Tory government.

 

Agree with much of what you wrote except the above. The Tories put a bullet in it, doesn't mean they didn't inherit a sick dog.

 

Yeah, but I would always rather look for a way to cure my dog rather than put it down at the first sign of trouble, especially if the dog's survival might mean that millions of others wouldn't be turned into sick, starving dogs themselves.

[Happ Hazzard]

Gypsies can have all the kids they want, as long as they have the means and abilities to raise them properly. I'm certainly not advocating discrimination due to ethnicity.

[David]

Indeed it was. The gap between the rich & the poor has grown by a fair margin since the era you speak of.

I think you're living in a fucking fantasy world if you believe that. The rich seem richer because of fractional banking systems and such like. Penny for penny, inflation adjusted, the very rich of this era are no more rich than the very rich of that era. The difference is that the banking system is on steroids and we view wealth differently, which makes people seem a lot richer.

So, you're telling me that the gap between the rich & poor in this country is no bigger than it was in, say, the 1940's or 1950's?

[mikey]

The poor were a lot poorer so, relatively speaking, no it isn't. The difference, especially in this city, is that we have lots of very rich people who aren't British and don't pay tax here, whilst fucking with every element of the economic system.

 

EDIT: My granddad always reckoned that the 50s were the happiest times; nobody had anything so nobody was jealous of anybody. Those that had something didn't mix with those who didn't. Take from that what you will.

Edited February 24, 2011 by mikey

[Carbomb]

EDIT: My granddad always reckoned that the 50s were the happiest times; nobody had anything so nobody was jealous of anybody. Those that had something didn't mix with those who didn't. Take from that what you will.

 

I'd have been a teddy boy, grease, drainpipes, winklepickers, quiff, the lot.

[David]

The poor were a lot poorer so, relatively speaking, no it isn't. The difference, especially in this city, is that we have lots of very rich people who aren't British and don't pay tax here, whilst fucking with every element of the economic system.

And the rich are a lot richer. The wealthy in this country have increased their fortune by far more than the poor have increased theirs, so the gap is wider.

 

It's absolutely ridiculous that we live in a country that sees less than 1% of the UK population having a personal combined wealth of over

[Yoghurt]

The spending cuts are necessary to balance the books, I don't see how people can still be against them, it's blindingly obvious, but then I find myself expecting a bit more from people then I probably should. Public services are bloated and inefficient and need cutting as they bring nothing in and private companies just can't support it.

[Loki]

Glad somebody mentioned rights versus responsibilities, that's a particular bugbear of mine.

 

In regards the 4 weeks of unpaid work... there are merits to the idea. Getting long-term unemployed people into the habit of getting up and out of the house and into a schedule (according to research) helps them find work as it improves motivation and so on and so forth. Also, having some actual social return for dole money makes sense.

 

BUT, as somebody on this board pointed out when the issue was first raised, if the work they'll be doing actually takes work away from employed people who do it, then it's a fucking stupid idea.

 

So, the concept doesn't worry me but the practical implications do. As I said, social engineering in terms of improving class mobility and solving issues to do with generational poverty and all that, I'm for. Limiting people's personal freedoms (such as having children) stinks of eugenics to me. And it IS a slipper slope. You try to incentivise poor people not to have children, but it doesn't really work so then you start thinking about maybe paying them to voluntarily be sterilized, and then maybe later on involuntary sterilization and so on.

 

The crucial point it, once you start taking sections of your population and seeing them as lesser members of the human race, you're in trouble. That's what's happened in Israel with the Palestinians, and it will take generations to undo.

[Kenny McBride]

The spending cuts are necessary to balance the books, I don't see how people can still be against them, it's blindingly obvious, but then I find myself expecting a bit more from people then I probably should. Public services are bloated and inefficient and need cutting as they bring nothing in and private companies just can't support it.

 

The current national debt is less than the value of our banking "investments." The deficit is on the large side, but still manageable.

 

I would stress that I support a balanced budget. In fact, I support running a small surplus to be set aside/prudently invested to be used for genuine Keynesian balancing measures when the economy takes another downturn then, as that investment grows, I'd like to see the growth used to fund gradual tax cuts starting from the bottom up. But that's beside the point. The point is that the scale of the cuts is unnecessary and is almost entirely ideologically driven.

[soretooth]

The spending cuts are necessary to balance the books, I don't see how people can still be against them, it's blindingly obvious, but then I find myself expecting a bit more from people then I probably should. Public services are bloated and inefficient and need cutting as they bring nothing in and private companies just can't support it.

 

The current national debt is less than the value of our banking "investments." The deficit is on the large side, but still manageable.

 

I would stress that I support a balanced budget. In fact, I support running a small surplus to be set aside/prudently invested to be used for genuine Keynesian balancing measures when the economy takes another downturn then, as that investment grows, I'd like to see the growth used to fund gradual tax cuts starting from the bottom up. But that's beside the point. The point is that the scale of the cuts is unnecessary and is almost entirely ideologically driven.

Exactly right. Yoghurt and people who have swallowed the line that cuts are unavoidable, have a look at this website, http://falseeconomy.org.uk/ which has a very good clear explanation of why the cuts won't help the economy and will make Britain more unfair.

[Yoghurt]

You are of course welcome to your opinion, and mine has been arrived at by following relevant sources of information, I don't tow party lines because I'm not a twat.