Stop Using Food Banks Says Tory

[byron78]

Well the first point is that if I am working, and they are not, they shouldn`t be "getting things free that I don`t". This alone is why Cameron knows he has a vote winning policy IMO.

What should they do, well the list is endless, they should do work that benefits the society that pays their wages (If we can have a bedroom "tax" we might as well call benefits wages?)

Cleaning streets/ buildings/ parks, helping older folk, doing a bit of driving for a day centre, helping out at a school etc etc, not a full week, 15 hours maybe, and they should be offered training to get their first job, or to get a new job. Obviously Cameron has to tackle immigration, but trying to tackle the dependency/entitlement culture is a necessary first step. People need to get the idea that as soon as they sign up for welfare they will be expected to do something in return, if they have worked for decades and lose a job, fair enough you have paid in so take some back, but within a couple of years there has to be positive pressure to re-train and move on. If all the millions on benefits want work they should all vote UKIP and stop this open door with Europe nonsense IMO

Point 1: so someone with cancer shouldn't get sickness benefit because you don't have cancer? An old person shouldn't get a pension because you're not old (and there are millions of old dears who were stay at home mum's that didn't pay for their pension in direct economic terms btw)? A mum with kids shouldn't get help because you don't have kids? Where do you draw the line? There's a natural unemployment rate and we're not far above it BTW, so are we saying anyone below this who can't find work because there isn't any can just die?

Point 2 is just daft, because almost all your examples put somebody else out of work. Sending the unemployed to do jobs people already do isn't an effective way of curing unemployment. If the alternative is "create new state jobs for them" then okay. If you want to have 2 million litter pickers fine, but your council tax/income tax is likely to be huge to pay for them.

Edit: I see Point 2 a lot. I call it the "Have Your Cake And Eat It" complex.

I want everyone to have a job.

I don't want to pay the higher taxes necessary to pay for all the jobs for them I can think up (these are usually community/societal jobs).

You can see why that's stupid surely?

Edited October 4, 2013 by byron78

[winkie]

Because I pay rent and council tax while people fitter and younger than me don`t because they claim they "can`t work just now" or they "are stressed" or "depressed" or some other shite, if the rich are chancers it is because thick sheeple let them be. How is that my problem?

You should be commended for your resilience, independence, intelligence and self esteem....you know that to avoid slipping down the slippery slope of dependency you have to have goals and work to achieve them....no gain without pain as they say.....I am sure you would not wish to swap your values and life for the people who don't want to help themselves or can't help themselves......believe me living on benefits is not a life most able capable people would aspire to live......don't diss all of them, each will have a story to tell, when people feel there is no hope for them it is very difficult to get out of the situation they find themselves in when all successive governments have done is to pay them and ignored the problem because it is cheaper to do that than provide excellent education and a worthwhile job that pays a living wage....kids can't choose their parents, where or when they were born....their parents are their role models, they will follow what they know.

[dances with sheeple]

Point 1: so someone with cancer shouldn't get sickness benefit because you don't have cancer? An old person shouldn't get a pension because you're not old (and there are millions of old dears who were stay at home mum's that didn't pay for their pension in direct economic terms btw)? A mum with kids shouldn't get help because you don't have kids? Where do you draw the line? There's a natural unemployment rate and we're not far above it BTW, so are we saying anyone below this who can't find work because there isn't any can just die?

Point 2 is just daft, because almost all your examples put somebody else out of work. Sending the unemployed to do jobs people already do isn't an effective way of curing unemployment. If the alternative is "create new state jobs for them" then okay. If you want to have 2 million litter pickers fine, but your council tax/income tax is likely to be huge to pay for them.

Edit: I see Point 2 a lot. I call it the "Have Your Cake And Eat It" complex.

I want everyone to have a job.

I don't want to pay the higher taxes necessary to pay for all the jobs for them I can think up (these are usually community/societal jobs).

You can see why that's stupid surely?

No.

Your first paragraph is just emotive nonsense. We simply draw the line at young fit people doing something in their community, 15 hours a week maybe, in return for society maintaining them while they are out of work, no one but you mentioned cancer or people who are too old to work.

People tagging along with the council a few hours a week to pick up leaves puts no one out of work, the person isn`t employed by the council, just helping them out for a couple of hours.

Care homes/learning disability units etc are always understaffed, someone (obviously disclosure checked) in to help out at mealtimes for example would take the load off employed staff, in fact I would say the UK wide care industry could absorb many thousands "doing something" for their benefits in some way.

Are you out of work/claiming some sort of benefit by any chance?

[byron78]

Are you out of work/claiming some sort of benefit by any chance?

Have been about 10 years ago.

Now a top rate tax payer.

As for the rest, I agree you can absorb a few thousand in the manner you suggest without incurring costs or putting others out of work.

Your argument is still invalid though. People ARE employed to pick up leaves believe it or not (any more and your council tax goes up); people ARE employed directly in care homes (they'd soon go if the care home thought they could get "free" state labour - my mum used to work in one, and most care home owners will do anything short of feeding old folk sawdust to lower costs).

The problem is we have 2.5 million out of work and about 3 million who are part time or zero houred.

If the state employed them all properly we'd be bankrupt (and private employment would drop as a result). If the state employed them all and paid them a pittance we'd be the CCCP.

Edited October 4, 2013 by byron78

[dances with sheeple]

You should be commended for your resilience, independence, intelligence and self esteem....you know that to avoid slipping down the slippery slope of dependency you have to have goals and work to achieve them....no gain without pain as they say.....I am sure you would not wish to swap your values and life for the people who don't want to help themselves or can't help themselves......believe me living on benefits is not a life most able capable people would aspire to live......don't diss all of them, each will have a story to tell, when people feel there is no hope for them it is very difficult to get out of the situation they find themselves in when all successive governments have done is to pay them and ignored the problem because it is cheaper to do that than provide excellent education and a worthwhile job that pays a living wage....kids can't choose their parents, where or when they were born....their parents are their role models, they will follow what they know.

Come on, there are large numbers of people milking the system for all they are worth, there is nothing wrong with their self esteem or where they came from they are just celeb obsessed lazy f*ucks who think they will only get out of bed if they can be a footballer/a Wag or win X-Factor. Of course there are people who are damaged and can`t move on because of it, but they are a minority of welfare claimants IMO, half of Eastern Europe is here milking our numpty Nanny State system FFS!

[dances with sheeple]

Have been about 10 years ago.

Now a top rate tax payer.

As for the rest, I agree you can absorb a few thousand in the manner you suggest without incurring costs or putting others out of work.

The problem is we have 2.5 million out of work and about 3 million who are part time or zero houred.

If the state employed them all properly we'd be bankrupt. If the state employed them all and paid them a pittance we'd be the CCCP.

Not if we stop opening the door wide to the EZ/World? Yes we need workers from overseas (especially in the care field/NHS) but potential workers from here (especially young ones) need to be given first shout on less qualified jobs IMO.

[byron78]

Not if we stop opening the door wide to the EZ/World? Yes we need workers from overseas (especially in the care field/NHS) but potential workers from here (especially young ones) need to be given first shout on less qualified jobs IMO.

Fair point.

So how do you remove the ones here?

Who pays for it?

What happens in the interim? (Most figures suggest immigrants pay more in tax then they take, but even if you disbelieve this there will be a bit of economic turmoil whilst things readjust.) if you want a working example of how "positive" affirmative action can go badly wrong, look at the mess that is South Africa.

[doomed]

Point 1: so someone with cancer shouldn't get sickness benefit because you don't have cancer? An old person shouldn't get a pension because you're not old (and there are millions of old dears who were stay at home mum's that didn't pay for their pension in direct economic terms btw)? A mum with kids shouldn't get help because you don't have kids? Where do you draw the line? There's a natural unemployment rate and we're not far above it BTW, so are we saying anyone below this who can't find work because there isn't any can just die?

Point 2 is just daft, because almost all your examples put somebody else out of work. Sending the unemployed to do jobs people already do isn't an effective way of curing unemployment. If the alternative is "create new state jobs for them" then okay. If you want to have 2 million litter pickers fine, but your council tax/income tax is likely to be huge to pay for them.

Edit: I see Point 2 a lot. I call it the "Have Your Cake And Eat It" complex.

I want everyone to have a job.

I don't want to pay the higher taxes necessary to pay for all the jobs for them I can think up (these are usually community/societal jobs).

You can see why that's stupid surely?

Typical left wing strategy.

If you think able unemployed people should not get money for nothing indefinitely you automatically want to starve cancer victims.

Amazing.

[OnionTerror]

Not if we stop opening the door wide to the EZ/World? Yes we need workers from overseas (especially in the care field/NHS) but potential workers from here (especially young ones) need to be given first shout on less qualified jobs IMO.

...if we pulled out of the EU, how would this effect British workers abroad, especially in Europe? How do the likes of the Swiss or Norwegians deal with it? For instance, how would British pensioners residing in Spain be treated?

AFAIK, Switzerland and Norway are part of the EEA, so they allow European workers in, but the Swiss currently have a cap (only lasting for a year)..

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/funding/biomedical-science/application-information/wtd004113.htm

This is how the Swiss are "handling it"...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22738774

[Driver]

You 'pay for ****wits to have kids'.

There are so many things wrong with that claim I hardly know where to start.

Benefits, as they are, are there as a safety net. And, with rising cost of living of the essentials in life, it is becoming inadequate.

They are not being 'paid to have kids'.

I guess you just despise humanity.

Safety net, you josh surely. When families have holidays and plasma TVs on benefits it ceased to be a net and became a lifestyle choice.

[dances with sheeple]

Fair point.

So how do you remove the ones here?

Who pays for it?

What happens in the interim? (Most figures suggest immigrants pay more in tax then they take, but even if you disbelieve this there will be a bit of economic turmoil whilst things readjust.) if you want a working example of how "positive" affirmative action can go badly wrong, look at the mess that is South Africa.

Leave the EZ or re-negotiate the treaties for a start, if you are not a UK citizen no benefits, if you are already here and working to support yourself and your family fine, keep doing so with our blessing, if you can do this for ten years and pay your taxes then apply to become a UK citizen, if you find yourself out of work go home and sign on, come back if a job turns up. According to UKIP we would save money by leaving the present EZ set up?

What happens in the interim is that working people from Poland etc stay as they are, those who are claiming benefits here go elsewhere and maybe free up some part time/ casual work for UK youth who would in my scenario be doing 15 hours a week in the local care home for their benefits anyway.

"No benefits if you just turn up here" is going to discourage those who know they won`t be able to work much or for much from coming, leading to a lower benefits bill and more work for unemployed youth here who will have to take something or they will only get food stamps.

Edited October 4, 2013 by dances with sheeple

[byron78]

Typical left wing strategy.

If you think able unemployed people should not get money for nothing indefinitely you automatically want to starve cancer victims.

Amazing.

I'm a disconnected Tory voter.

Not a leftie.

I do seem to get branded that a lot by rightwingers when I say something difficult mind (the sort of rabid idiot who shouts "socialist!" at anything they don't like, even if it's the result of a largely rightwinger driven free-market).

I get called a rightwinger by lefties I know.

It's lazy polarising, and besides which you could get a fag paper between Labour and the Tories now. It's all Thatcherism/globalism. And it's failed.

Edited October 4, 2013 by byron78

[dances with sheeple]

...if we pulled out of the EU, how would this effect British workers abroad, especially in Europe? How do the likes of the Swiss or Norwegians deal with it? For instance, how would British pensioners residing in Spain be treated?

AFAIK, Switzerland and Norway are part of the EEA, so they allow European workers in, but the Swiss currently have a cap (only lasting for a year)..

http://www.wellcome....n/wtd004113.htm

This is how the Swiss are "handling it"...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-22738774

Well I am amazed that the EZ is still hanging together to be honest, at a guess UK pensioners with money to spend in Spain would be welcome, most of them will be drawing pensions/benefits from the UK? I suppose if you run a specialized software company you are going to take the best "talent" you can get, no matter where they are from, and if you ran a British theme bar in Eastern Europe a couple of British birds behind the bar would still be okay? My main problem is with people just turning up in the UK and signing on, not workers who are required for a functioning economy.

[byron78]

Leave the EZ or re-negotiate the treaties for a start, if you are not a UK citizen no benefits, if you are already here and working to support yourself and your family fine, keep doing so with our blessing, if you can do this for ten years and pay your taxes then apply to become a UK citizen, if you find yourself out of work go home and sign on, come back if a job turns up. According to UKIP we would save money by leaving the present EZ set up?

What happens in the interim is that working people from Poland etc stay as they are, those who are claiming benefits here go elsewhere and maybe free up some part time/ casual work for UK youth who would in my scenario be doing 15 hours a week in the local care home for their benefits anyway.

"No benefits if you just turn up here" is going to discourage those who know they won`t be able to work much or for much from coming leading to a lower benefits bill and more work for unemployed youth here who will have to take something or they will only get food stamps.

I'm lost. How will kicking out the unemployed Poles create jobs?

Perhaps we employ the unemployed British to kick the unemployed Poles out?

We could get them natty black shirts or something.

Edited October 4, 2013 by byron78

[byron78]

Safety net, you josh surely. When families have holidays and plasma TVs on benefits it ceased to be a net and became a lifestyle choice.

Having been there (£60 a week, with £20 going on topping up rent) I couldn't afford those things.

I did see others with them though. Don't presume it's benefits bought. Lots of unemployed folk were buying things on credit cards when I was on the dole (seriously).

Their attitude was "it's the banks fault for lending me 2K when I'm on £60 a week benefit... They'll never get it back!"

The banks didn't in the main. Know lots of youngish ex-bankrupts.

Idiots definitely, but benefit culture was largely dwarfed by banking culture in the example you've used.

[dances with sheeple]

I'm lost. How will kicking out the unemployed Poles create jobs?

Perhaps we employ the unemployed British to kick the unemployed Poles out?

We could get them natty black shirts or something.

Because it sends out the message - don`t come over here and work as a bouncer or a barman, or tarring a road for a couple of weeks, then sign on and bring your bird and two kids over.

Unemployed British ex- forces types should be employed to find people who are here ILLEGALY, under our laws, and politely escort them to the airport, which is probably a nicer exit than some of them deserve?

Edited October 4, 2013 by dances with sheeple

[byron78]

Because it sends out the message - don`t come over here and work as a bouncer or a barman, or tarring a road for a couple of weeks, then sign on and bring your bird and two kids over.

Unemployed British ex- forces types should be employed to find people who are here ILLEGALY, under our laws, and politely escort them to the airport, which is probably a nicer exit than some of them deserve?

So we increase taxes to pay for all this for how long?

When all the Poles are gone do we then lay off the anti-Pole blackshirts?

Who would be responsible for deciding who mobilises these blackshirts and would they be okay with just dissolving them once the Poles are gone, or should we mobilise them against someone else first?

The Irish? Gingers? People that prefer dogs to cats?

[dances with sheeple]

So we increase taxes to pay for all this for how long?

When all the Poles are gone do we then lay off the anti-Pole blackshirts?

Who would be responsible for deciding who mobilises these blackshirts and would they be okay with just dissolving them once the Poles are gone, or should we mobilise them against someone else first?

The Irish? Gingers? People that prefer dogs to cats?

Are you Polish?

[Guest eight]

Maybe he wants to brush it under the carpet and hope it goes away, not to be advertised, it gives the country and our social system a bad name, something not to broadcast to the masses when we are supposed to be getting back on track....

I was just thinking about that the other day. Twenty years after the end of the cold war and the entire US government is in skinted impasse and the UK is arguing who deemed worthy enough to be fed by charity. Back in the 80's we'd have been smug as **** to hear about the same going on behind the iron curtain.

[byron78]

Are you Polish?

Nope.

My Granddad served with a lot of Poles in the second world war though. Does that count?

Funny story. One of them was shot down over an English village by the Germans. The local English villagers caught the Polish pilot (fighting for Britain) and tortured him because they thought he was German. My Granddad came to fear Little Englanders as much as facism because of that, and always said if it ever came back to Europe in a big way it'd probably happen here.

Edited October 4, 2013 by byron78

[LiveinHope]

It is not up to Cameron to provide hope for people but it is up to him and the government to provide the circumstances where progress can be made - where there is a chance of work, of self sufficiency and financial stability.

That is what I was getting at. It is everyone's responsibility to ensure that those you are responsible for 'progress'. For me that means ensuring that those that work for me progress - even if they then leave because they have developed beyond their current tasks. Hopefully, they won't want to leave however, because i should be providing the conditions they need to be happy at work, it's in my interests after all. Cameron should be doing the same for the UK.

That is what the vast majority of people actually want. Instead Cameron has turned on the poorest.

Personally, I don't think he has turned on anyone - I think that is crediting him with too much. It was just soundbites for his party members. All it shows is that neither he, nor any of the other parties for that matter, had the confidence to articulate a vision, and, God only knows, this thread shows that the UK needs some vision. Everyone is ignoring the generation beneath them and they need leadership.

Edited October 4, 2013 by LiveinHope

[sombreroloco]

AFAIK, Switzerland and Norway are part of the EEA, so they allow European workers in

That's not how it works. EU citizens have to right to look for work in EEA countries, but that doesn't automatically translate into a Visa. Once they have job offer, they can apply for a visa. Compare it with non-EU citizens, they cannot even look for work, that would be a breach of their tourist visa.

If Britain ever left the EU just to avoid EU immigration, it should also leave the EEA. This is what the FUKIP are not telling their voters and that's why they're getting strong, because they are liars and their supporters are ignorant.

Edited October 4, 2013 by sombreroloco

[dances with sheeple]

Nope.

My Granddad served with a lot of Poles in the second world war though. Does that count?

Funny story. One of them was shot down over an English village by the Germans. The local English villagers caught the Polish pilot (fighting for Britain) and tortured him because they thought he was German. My Granddad came to fear Little Englanders as much as facism because of that, and always said if it ever came back to Europe in a big way it'd probably happen here.

Did they threaten to cut off his benefits?

[byron78]

Did they threaten to cut off his benefits?

Not unless "goolies" is Norfolk slang for jobseekers, no. ;-)

Edited October 4, 2013 by byron78

[billybong]

Maynard, who works for minister of state Oliver Letwin, said people should value "personal responsibility" and not see visiting food banks as a normal activity.

Self reiiance is indeed a very good thing but there again just a few days ago Cameron was going on about "together we'll build that land of opportunity". It's the same old same old. The same tired stuff cut and pasted from conference speeches decades ago.

How many more decades upon decades do they need and even then they'll still be saying "together we'll build that land of opportunity".

Edited October 4, 2013 by billybong