Labour's lasting legacy
Idly perusing a Spectator editorial a moment ago, CF was stunned by one of the most horrifying statistics he has ever, ever had the misfortune to see:
"Britain has more people on welfare than Ireland, Finland and New Zealand have people"
For fucks sake. Just read that again. For FUCKS SAKE. How did we come to this? And what the fuck are we going to do about it ?
.
Posts
12 comments:
There is a social disease. A cancer. A political Klamidya called the UK Labour Party that you can blame for that.
The disease is called Socialism ..
The cure is called liquidation ..
Goodbye Labour, welcome, oh wait, shit, we're in a recession...
We need to really panic when we have more people on welfare that New Zealand has sheep, though.
I think it'll probably be some time in 2012...
We will do fuck all.
When it comes to stuff like this, we are world class at doing fuck all.
Doing fuck all is what we do best.
CR.
When offered the choice between a low income and no job and a low income and a shit 35 hours a week job, a lot of people are , not unnaturally, going to choose the former.
Neither one gives satisfactory lifestyle to those people with limited ability and education who have had their expectations raised by a constant diet of TV and Advertising.
There is no easy answer.
Jack, actually there is an easy answer.
Make the choice one between no job no income or a low income from a shit 35 hours a week job.
I can understand how people feel about 'shirkers' and 'spongers', but just suppose that there are genuinely not enough jobs? There are indubitably areas of the country where this is so. Should young men and women in Liverpool, for example, move from their parents homes in Liverpool to seek minimum wage jobs in London and live in some squalid hostel or on the streets? You could say 'yes' to that question, but be mindful of the Victorian values that you are espousing, and be mindful of the encouragement of petty crime which you are driving such young people towards.
The situation is much more complex than can be assessed in 'sound bites'. Yes, there are groups (mostly families and single mothers) who are better off not working. But isn't that problem more to do with wage rates than scrounging? Ian Duncan Smith has said that he wants to ensure that no one is better off not working than working. What he seems to mean by that is reduce benefits. He does not seems to mean increase wages. He wants the low wage economy to continue to exist so that MPs like himself can go on squandering our taxes with wild abandon.
Junican - We don't have a 'low wage' economy, we have the minimum wage. And if all you are worth in the labour market is minimum wage, it's still adequate as long as you don't keep squeezing out kids and buying ever bigger tellys.
Benefits that are higher than min wage need to be seriously reduced. People increase wages themselves by gaining experience and qualifications.
Bucko.
Your comment is why I hesitated to speak. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am simply pointing out that not all circumstances are the same. For example, a family man, with his own mortgaged home, might lose his decently paid job. He may be worth a decent wage in the economy but unable to get such a job because they no longer exist. The only work available may be minimum wage jobs, quite insufficient to keep a family and a home and a mortgage.
All I am saying is that the situation is much more complex than meets the eye. I think that politicians are well aware of this, but choose to speak in phrases which are politically useful.
I will say no more.
Junican. Sorry, I've been around enough handsomely paid alcoholics to colour my judgement in benefit discussions.
I know it is a lot more complicated than black and white.
I don't however think the government should be meddling in wages, they tend to break everything they touch.
My only comment is to wish labour the Black death,otherwise known as the pest
for the rest of Eternity,my hatred of you knows no bounds.
Post a Comment