mozr
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,175
- Reaction score
- 205
Janobi has made an excellent point.
We are not talking about the eradication of the welfare state. We are talking about modest cuts to help towards solving the deficit. We ALL need to chip in; we ALL benefit from this nation when it is doing well.
As Munkey well understands, our post imperialist set of circumstances (including our close links with the US) means our modest nation is one of the most developed and prosperous, despite a lack of natural resources compared with other countries. We are disproportionately wealthy and this is beginning to change.
The sense of entitlement that being 'British' means that we expect too much. To the point where even some of our once proud working class (and despite my education, I am a working class boy) expects a lifestyle that they do not wish to work for.
On that Nick Robinson show yesterday an audience member asked the question where was her incentive to work, when she earns only £12 a week more than if she was on benefits? Whilst anecdotal, this illustrates the problems we face. One, she should of course work because first and foremost she can look in the mirror and know she earns a living and pays her way. Unfortunately many choose to ignore that pride which our forbears had. Two, you can understand her frustration. The frustration that many working people have, living on council estates, and seeing certain families live just as comfortable lives, even though nobody in the family earns a wage.
This is partly why we have a small 'c' conservative government. Labour did not address this, because as we all know, politics are local.
Now you can put this down to jealousy if you want. But I believe it is more down to a sense of fairness. If I was playing tit for tat I would point to another form of jealousy, where some people on here demonise the wealthy for tax evasion, expenses, and bailouts. But that would be beneath me, so I won't do it.
DLA is also something that needs to be address. It comes down to semantics. Who is disabled? How disabled do you have to be to not have to work and contribute? Are these not reasonable questions, and should they not be relative to the amount of money a country has to spend?
Why should it not be assessed? If it is demeaning, then can you please stop the Inland Revenue from asking me to prove how much I earn, as I find that demeaning. They should just accept my £1000 a year income and leave me alone. If you get on a train, a conductor wants to see your ticket. If you want to leave the country, someone wants to see your passport. If you want benefits then somebody needs to test your means both financial and health wise to see whether you are entitled to it. If you meet the criteria, good luck to you.
And a close relative of mine has motor neurone disease. She would like nothing more than anything to have her health and to be able to continue to work, and despises those that although they might have a minor ailment, try and claim for everything they can get. Every bloke who is on DLA standing outside the pub smoking and drinking at 10am with a 'bad back' is a personal insult to her.
You can call it jealousy if you want, but I think it is shameful to think that there are people in this country who would prefer to live off the state.
To be perfectly clear, I am not talking about those that have no choice ( the many recently made redundant, the infirm, etc).
Now to the opposite end of the spectrum. I agree wholeheartedly, that the rich should pay their fair share. I would also state that there are aspects of this budget that do not address that. The problem is that yes you can blame the rich for getting us into this mess, but the good times happened because of economic growth that made the people rich in the first place.
But just as the budget is not as great as the coalition tries to make out, it's nowhere near as bad as the Labour party and the media would have you believe.
The unions will whinge, people will strike, but it needs to be done. The belt needed to be tightened. We are spending more money than we earn. You would not run your house like that, why should we run our country?
We are not talking about the eradication of the welfare state. We are talking about modest cuts to help towards solving the deficit. We ALL need to chip in; we ALL benefit from this nation when it is doing well.
As Munkey well understands, our post imperialist set of circumstances (including our close links with the US) means our modest nation is one of the most developed and prosperous, despite a lack of natural resources compared with other countries. We are disproportionately wealthy and this is beginning to change.
The sense of entitlement that being 'British' means that we expect too much. To the point where even some of our once proud working class (and despite my education, I am a working class boy) expects a lifestyle that they do not wish to work for.
On that Nick Robinson show yesterday an audience member asked the question where was her incentive to work, when she earns only £12 a week more than if she was on benefits? Whilst anecdotal, this illustrates the problems we face. One, she should of course work because first and foremost she can look in the mirror and know she earns a living and pays her way. Unfortunately many choose to ignore that pride which our forbears had. Two, you can understand her frustration. The frustration that many working people have, living on council estates, and seeing certain families live just as comfortable lives, even though nobody in the family earns a wage.
This is partly why we have a small 'c' conservative government. Labour did not address this, because as we all know, politics are local.
Now you can put this down to jealousy if you want. But I believe it is more down to a sense of fairness. If I was playing tit for tat I would point to another form of jealousy, where some people on here demonise the wealthy for tax evasion, expenses, and bailouts. But that would be beneath me, so I won't do it.
DLA is also something that needs to be address. It comes down to semantics. Who is disabled? How disabled do you have to be to not have to work and contribute? Are these not reasonable questions, and should they not be relative to the amount of money a country has to spend?
Why should it not be assessed? If it is demeaning, then can you please stop the Inland Revenue from asking me to prove how much I earn, as I find that demeaning. They should just accept my £1000 a year income and leave me alone. If you get on a train, a conductor wants to see your ticket. If you want to leave the country, someone wants to see your passport. If you want benefits then somebody needs to test your means both financial and health wise to see whether you are entitled to it. If you meet the criteria, good luck to you.
And a close relative of mine has motor neurone disease. She would like nothing more than anything to have her health and to be able to continue to work, and despises those that although they might have a minor ailment, try and claim for everything they can get. Every bloke who is on DLA standing outside the pub smoking and drinking at 10am with a 'bad back' is a personal insult to her.
You can call it jealousy if you want, but I think it is shameful to think that there are people in this country who would prefer to live off the state.
To be perfectly clear, I am not talking about those that have no choice ( the many recently made redundant, the infirm, etc).
Now to the opposite end of the spectrum. I agree wholeheartedly, that the rich should pay their fair share. I would also state that there are aspects of this budget that do not address that. The problem is that yes you can blame the rich for getting us into this mess, but the good times happened because of economic growth that made the people rich in the first place.
But just as the budget is not as great as the coalition tries to make out, it's nowhere near as bad as the Labour party and the media would have you believe.
The unions will whinge, people will strike, but it needs to be done. The belt needed to be tightened. We are spending more money than we earn. You would not run your house like that, why should we run our country?
Last edited:
