Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The right, the welfare system and its propaganda watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    The reality is very different.
    You state that as fact without giving any evidence to prove it. In my personal experience, I've met several people on benefits who exploit the system irresponsibly. I'm not saying that most people are scroungers, nor am I implying that they are a significant cause of the economic downturn, but I've seen enough in my time to suggest that a significant minority of those who are reliant on welfare could do without it. The left's belief in the fundamental honesty of people never fails to astound me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Free.Help)
    But yes, the attack on the working class by them Tory rats is disgusting
    Those being primarily attacked, the long-term unemployed, are catergorised as under class, not working class because, quite simply, they do not work.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    I'm not racist or one of those daily mail types, immigration is an issue which does need dealing with yet it is hard for anyone to talk about it without sounding a bit bnp. I'm all for an equal exchange of work or to fill job shortages; so with the shortages in skilled workers I'm happy for them to be filled with immigrants or if say a doctor moves to germany and a german doctor comes to the uk. I disagree with letting immigrants filling the few jobs in the country when we have so many unemployed. If there are 2 people, one immigrant and one british person, and one job. If the job goes to the immigrant that leaves the british person unemployed and having to live off benefits . If the job goes to the british person, then the immigrant can't live off benefits. I know this is a massive simplication, but I believe we should have an approach like Australia's: where the system is point bases, focusing on job shortages and expected income (and in the future what they'd contribute in tax to the country). Unlike DM readers, I don't believe immigrants come here for benefits: they come here for work, but that itself is a problem.
    I can understand that people don't really agree with 'mass' immigration, and yes, it is a complicated subject, and I don't pretend to know everything, however, I have done alot of work both education wise and through employment with immigrants, so I have some knowledge on the subject.

    The problem first of all is the different types of immigrats, most people complain about 'asylum seekers'. This group aren't allowed to work, get no benefits other than £5 per day, aren't entitled to anything basically. Also most asylum cases are refused, so they either have to return to their country, or if they can't, live in poverty.

    Refugees on the other hand, are allowed to work, but having known alot of refugees, not one of them are able to find work. Most don't speak English well, don't have english quals. Or if they do find low paid work, they are usually expolited, I know one dude who worked 12 hour days for £10 daily :eek:

    Other immigrants, i.e. economic immigrants are usually doctors, lawyers etc. But people don't seem to have such a problem with them =/

    I think the media/politictions use these often vulnerable people as a scapegoat and a distraction to the real reason of mass unemployment and the recession. While I can't argue that some immigrants work, therefore may be taking a job that an english person may have had, and that a small number expolit the system, this is very rare, and most are in worse situitations than us

    So, to conclude..I think immigration is the least of this countries problems, and with or without immigrants, we'd still be in this huge mess of unemployment, fianacial difficulties and economic depression. However, the media, politicions, or whoever often use the old British mentaility of devide and conquer!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heshop)
    Those being primarily attacked, the long-term unemployed, are catergorised as under class, not working class because, quite simply, they do not work.
    I try my best not to stereotype, or generalise a group but it's comments like this that makes it difficult not to think members on this fourm are politically ignorant
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    At a time where the benefits are rising 1 percent, which is a decrease if you take into account inflation those on benefits are portrayed in an almost cartoon character sense; as all lazy scroungers who spend all their money on smoking and having kiddies for a house and benefits. The reality is very different. Now we are all going to agree that 'scroungers' shouldn't be 'living a life of luxury' as the media portays. As we identify us, our family or friends as not scroungers. After all they're not talking about us??

    The tory idea that to solve unemployment is that they just need to get a job; when there is not enough jobs to go round, many jobs get taken up by immigrants, and some do not have affordable or suitable childcare (most childcare has limited working hours). The tories and the DM fuel hate towards those on benefits looking for work.
    The Tories and DM are highlighting something that is obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by left-wing ideology: namely those in receipt of cash benefits are getting a free ride courtesy of the taxpayer.

    As a rule people don't like it when they see others getting away with something, especially if they're doing so at the expense of the hard-working.

    Yes society is unjust, and yes, there aren't enough decently paid jobs about. But that doesn't detract from the fact that benefit claimants are effectively getting money for nothing. Furthermore dishing out yet more cash in the form of benefits doesn't solve injustice or add to the total no. of jobs available, it merely kicks the can down the road for a bit longer and adds to our growing mound of financial problems.

    The left need to address this reality before directing their venom at right-wing bogeymen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Free.Help)
    I try my best not to stereotype, or generalise a group but it's comments like this that makes it difficult not to think members on this fourm are politically ignorant
    The underclass are typically considered to be a stratum of society who have been marginalised from the labour market for a prolonged period of time. I'm not saying that the phrase isn't subjective but many people would consider that long term unemployment, for whatever reason, is a primary trait of the underclass. Charles Murray and William J. Wilson write excellently on the subject if you're interested. ""
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Yes society is unjust, and yes, there aren't enough decently paid jobs about. But that doesn't detract from the fact that benefit claimants are effectively getting money for nothing. .
    I disagree. Unemployment and going on the dole, going on disability or needing expensive medical care could happen to us all. We work, we contribute in tax and it effectively acts as insurance for the unexpected and unplanned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    I disagree. Unemployment and going on the dole, going on disability or needing expensive medical care could happen to us all. We work, we contribute in tax and it effectively acts as insurance for the unexpected and unplanned.
    You're assuming of course that those in receipt of benefits are only taking out what they've put in.

    If this were the case the taxation/welfare system would still be disagreeable from the libertarian standpoint but at least vaguely sane, however many families exploit our generous welfare system without ever contributing a single penny. This sort of thing infuriates your average Daily Mail reader, and I have to say they have a point.

    I absolutely agree with you that the economy is screwed and that the poor are getting a raw deal, but I don't believe public sector theft (tax/welfare) is the answer.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    My parents weren't working long enough before my dad got ill to have put in what they've taken out - but they genuinely need it; my dad has been told he's incapable of working and he can't be left alone for long periods of time, so my mum being his full-time carer is the only option. Yes, they live on benefits and yes, they will do for the rest of their lives - but that's not to say they'll never put back in what they've taken out.

    They've raised me and my siblings to be ambitious and highly motivated - our primary motivation is the desire to never live on benefits. We all know what we want to do with our lives, and I'm currently at university, and I intend to work as much as possible when I graduate - I want a steady, stable career and I never want my kids to grow up with the stigma of being on benefits (and trust me, there is a HUGE stigma). In bringing me and my siblings up that way, my parents have ensured that there are at least three people who'll be going into the world with no desire to ever claim benefits.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You're assuming of course that those in receipt of benefits are only taking out what they've put in.

    If this were the case the taxation/welfare system would still be disagreeable from the libertarian standpoint but at least vaguely sane, however many families exploit our generous welfare system without ever contributing a single penny. This sort of thing infuriates your average Daily Mail reader, and I have to say they have a point.

    I absolutely agree with you that the economy is screwed and that the poor are getting a raw deal, but I don't believe public sector theft (tax/welfare) is the answer.
    a few, not the majority. some people can't contribute even though they want to, many people on benefits want jobs but there's a lack of jobs there.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that everyone should pay their fair share in taxation, but this includes the very poorest. Even if it were a tax rate of less than 1%, I think it fundamentally right that everyone is contributing to society. Everyone should be contributing to the society they live in, however much or little they are able to contribute. It would also go some way to dispelling the label of the 'scroungers'. Whilst removing anyone earning less than £10k from income tax puts more money in people's pockets, it also dismisses them as too poor to contribute anything directly to society, which I think is morally wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    a few, not the majority. some people can't contribute even though they want to, many people on benefits want jobs but there's a lack of jobs there.
    I agree that the employment market is problematic, but what I'm saying is that if we penalise working for a living any further in the name of 'redistribution' we'll only make the economy worse. The economy cannot function properly when it's being burdened with the tax demands of a greedy and wasteful government, tax reductions won't solve all our problems of course, but they're a step in the right direction in terms of growth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    It isn't a failure of Capitalism now though is it? We are in a mess because of government intervention.
    You are so right! There are no government barriers to employment in Somalia (well.. there's no government) and it's totally booming!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I agree that the employment market is problematic, but what I'm saying is that if we penalise working for a living any further in the name of 'redistribution' we'll only make the economy worse. The economy cannot function properly when it's being burdened with the tax demands of a greedy and wasteful government, tax reductions won't solve all our problems of course, but they're a step in the right direction in terms of growth.
    To solve it we need politicians who need to solve the problems. Politicans at the moment base their speeches and policies on what sounds 'good' on paper, but doesn't work in reality yet those policies wouldn't sound as good. People like Cameron are playing it safe implying all we need to do to sort the economy out is get those lazy scroungers off their backside and working instead of looking st the entire problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    To solve it we need politicians who need to solve the problems. Politicans at the moment base their speeches and policies on what sounds 'good' on paper, but doesn't work in reality yet those policies wouldn't sound as good. People like Cameron are playing it safe implying all we need to do to sort the economy out is get those lazy scroungers off their backside and working instead of looking st the entire problem.
    Broadly speaking I agree that we need to get those workshy scroungers into proper jobs, but I think my idea of a sponger differs quite markedly from Cameron's.

    The banking class who were bailed out to the tune of £bns by New Labour are spongers imo - they're benefit recipients pure and simple. Professionals who rely on regulation and red-tape to hinder the competition are lining their pockets through indirect gov't subsidies, this is another form of scrounging that we need to pull the plug on. Many public sector workers are being paid far more than they're actually worth - there have been cases where County Council bosses were receiving upwards of £200k p/a courtesy of the taxpayer for example which is more than the Prime Minister, how can that be justified?

    I'm sure there are loads of examples of lazy workshy scrounging, but instead of the left targetting one group - bankers/bosses, and the right tackling another - the Jeremy Kyle class, we both need to take a broader view of the situation to help make sense of it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    At a time where the benefits are rising 1 percent,
    Going a bit off topic but I find it disgusting that public sector workers have only had a pay increase of 1%. Each year the food, gas and petrol prices rise and my fathers wage practically stays the same. Almost 6 million work for the public sector, surely if they increased their wage a bit then it would automatically put a bit more money into the economy and help speed things up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swanbow)
    Going a bit off topic but I find it disgusting that public sector workers have only had a pay increase of 1%. Each year the food, gas and petrol prices rise and my fathers wage practically stays the same. Almost 6 million work for the public sector, surely if they increased their wage a bit then it would automatically put a bit more money into the economy and help speed things up.
    We can't afford to, the state is in too much debt as it is. £1 trillion and counting.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    We can't afford to, the state is in too much debt as it is. £1 trillion and counting.
    I don't exactly find that true. Keynesian theory would say that spending more on creating infrastructure and putting more money into the actual economy will help stimulate growth. But anyway this isn't exactly the right thread for stimulus vs austerity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swanbow)
    I don't exactly find that true. Keynesian theory would say that spending more on creating infrastructure and putting more money into the actual economy will help stimulate growth. But anyway this isn't exactly the right thread for stimulus vs austerity.
    Yes if the gov't spent money sensibly on projects that added value this could very well improve lreal iving standards (I can't bare to talk in terms of 'stimulating growth' or 'getting the economy moving' - we work to make our lives easier and more comfortable, we don't labour to improve 'teh economeh'). Unfortunately this is rarely the case - we waste taxpayers' money on 5-a-day consultants, foreign aid and welfare benefits that line the pockets of the wealthy (i.e the Winter Fuel allowance which is paid to millionaires like Lord Sugar). The state is a giant wasteful monster and imo it needs to be curtailed for the good of the economy in general.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Yes if the gov't spent money sensibly on projects that added value this could very well improve lreal iving standards (I can't bare to talk in terms of 'stimulating growth' or 'getting the economy moving' - we work to make our lives easier and more comfortable, we don't labour to improve 'teh economeh'). Unfortunately this is rarely the case - we waste taxpayers' money on 5-a-day consultants, foreign aid and welfare benefits that line the pockets of the wealthy (i.e the Winter Fuel allowance which is paid to millionaires like Lord Sugar). The state is a giant wasteful monster and imo it needs to be curtailed for the good of the economy in general.
    Can't disagree with you there to be honest. The mismanagement of government spending is ridiculous. Surely however efforts should be taken to introduce leaner and better management and remove unnecessary benefits before hitting at the at the pay of public sector workers. I can understand it was necessary as a temporary measure, but seriously capping their increase at one percent until 2016 is going to hit a lot of families hard and going to do nothing to increase consumer spending. But yeah much rather have efficient state as your stating, easier said than done though.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.